“reinforcing our view that they are acting solely in the interests of their friends in the City when they oppose the EU FTT so frantically.”

Or, you know, they could just be financially literate. The FTT will increase, not reduce, price volatility, reduce GDP (as even the EU itself says), not raise any net revenue (as even the EU says) and the economic burden will not be carried by banks but by all users of financial services. You know, the general citizenry.

I will admit to being completely astonished at the continuing support the RHT has. Vast numbers of economists have been pointing out that it just won’t achieve what you think it will: so why do you keep on campaigning for it?

Given that Robin Hood of legend robbed the tax-collectors and gave the money back to the people, it’s a contradiction in terms to speak of a ‘Robin Hood Tax’. If Robin Hood had a political philosophy, it was anarcho-capitalism.

@ 2 Trooper Thompson

“Given that Robin Hood of legend robbed the tax-collectors and gave the money back to the people, it’s a contradiction in terms to speak of a ‘Robin Hood Tax’. If Robin Hood had a political philosophy, it was anarcho-capitalism.”

Well, “Robin Hood” is a mythical figure who may or may not be based on a real person or persons, so we won’t get very far arguing about what Robin Hood really thought.

If we’re talking about the Robin Hood character we know today, however, I’m pretty sure his attitude is summed up by “steal from the rich, give to the poor”. Which I suspect you know really.

It wouldn’t matter if 60 million people were marching through Westminster crying out for such a tax.
It wouldn’t matter if all the economists in the world, the Pope and the Archangel Gabriel all agreed that it was a good and worthwhile thing to do.
The City doesn’t want it and their lap dogs in Parliament, fearful that the large Party donations might suddenly dry up, would duly oblige.
It’s how Britain operates.

@ Chaise,

“If we’re talking about the Robin Hood character we know today, however, I’m pretty sure his attitude is summed up by “steal from the rich, give to the poor”. Which I suspect you know really.”

No way. You’re twisting the legend. The bad guy is the Sheriff of Nottingham, i.e. the representative of the rapacious state, plundering off the people.

Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men are a kind proto – Tax Payers Alliance, albeit of a more militant persuasion, who take direct action to cut taxes and return the money to the hard-pressed commoners.

“The question which asked whether voters would support or oppose “a tax on financial transactions by investment banks” was particularly interesting.”

The only thing that’s interesting and actually funny are your complete lack of morals when it comes to informing people on the consequence to them and your ability to shape questions to make it seem there are none.

@5 Trooper Thompson

“No way. You’re twisting the legend. The bad guy is the Sheriff of Nottingham, i.e. the representative of the rapacious state, plundering off the people. ”

If “steal from the rich, give to the poor” is twisting the Robin Hood legend, you’ve been watching some very different films to me. Sure you weren’t thinking of Atlas Shrugged?

“Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men are a kind proto – Tax Payers Alliance, albeit of a more militant persuasion, who take direct action to cut taxes and return the money to the hard-pressed commoners.”

Robin Hood’s depicted as robbing generic rich people too. How do the TPA, in their merry green tights of glory, feel about that?

Bucking the trend (as a Labour supporting female) I have found the arguments against the tax persuasive, and the arguments in favour completely unpersuasive (from discussions elsewhere).

Chaise,

the reason the Sheriff of Nottingham was the bad guy was not because he was rich, but because he was a tyrant and a plunderer. His wealth was coerced out of the people.Robin wasn’t stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he was implementing a tax rebate.

He also had a very libertarian attitude towards the right to keep and bear arms.

The original legend of Robin Hood told of an outlaw who stole deer from the King’s land, overtime the story changed and now Robin Hood is associated with wealth redistribution, which doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

I am very curious, do you all remember that great period in time before the Euro was introduced? Any one against the idea was labelled a “has been” or an “xenophobic little Englander” despite any amount of economic sense given as reason.

Please tell me, what was TUC”s position on the UK joining the Euro and the Euro over all at that time?

Has the proposed tax changed to “a tax on financial transactions by investment banks”? Because I thought it was a tax on financial transactions (of a given variety) by anyone. By our pension funds, by companies, even by tourists buying foreign currencies.

Tim, don’t be baffled by the popularity of this tax, my guess is that 99% of its supporters believe the tax will be paid by investment banks. If I thought the FTT would be paid by banks (meaning lower profits for banks and lower pay for high-paid bankers) I’d support it too. The campaign is well aware of this.

“Tim, don’t be baffled by the popularity of this tax,”

I’m not baffled. I’m a tad dismayed by my fellow countrymen not understanding when they’re being ripped off but I agree, the details of taxation are not for everyone.

I will admit thought to being outraged by the likes of Owen Tudor. Either he knows he’s lying or he’s too ignorant to know that he is.

Neither strike me as valuable assets in determining what public policy should be.

Can I point out the dishonesty of the question and/or the conclusion?

the question which asked whether voters would support or oppose “a tax on financial transactions by investment banks”

Notice they are not asked if they support the Robin Hood Tax. They are not even asked if they support the FTT. They are asked if they supported a tax. Not the tax. We have no idea if they meant Stamp Duty or income tax or corporation tax or even Estate Duty. People often believe bizarre things.

What Owen doesn’t say, naturally, is this question got the lowest level of support of any question except one. That one was bringing in a 75% tax rate on incomes over £1 million. So it seems Robin Hood is not very popular among their sample. What he also does not point out is what was popular – 85% of respondents said that reducing the deficit was important. The only policies even more popular than that were reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and economic growth.

Basically British people are very Tory.

10. jojo

The original legend of Robin Hood told of an outlaw who stole deer from the King’s land, overtime the story changed and now Robin Hood is associated with wealth redistribution, which doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

Well not wealth distribution. If you pay attention closely to what he is doing, he is actually robbing itinerant merchants. Small scale traders who bring what little consumer goods there were to the countryside. Exactly who this is supposed to be in favour of these days I have no idea. The anti-Tesco campaigners? But thank God he is only a fictional character who did not actually make government policy.

@ 14

“Well not wealth distribution. If you pay attention closely to what he is doing, he is actually robbing itinerant merchants. ”

Propaganda intended to blacken a national hero’s reputation. He only stole from the bigger thieves. Next you’ll be telling us Magna Charta was an outrageous affront to his sacred majesty king John.

15. Trooper Thompson

Propaganda intended to blacken a national hero’s reputation. He only stole from the bigger thieves. Next you’ll be telling us Magna Charta was an outrageous affront to his sacred majesty king John.

I tell you, it has been down hill for Britain ever since that dreadful piece of Leftist propaganda was signed.

SMFS: “85% of respondents said that reducing the deficit was important. The only policies even more popular than that were reducing unemployment, creating new jobs and economic growth.”

But all these “popular policies” are not policies. They are the results of policies. Of course most people want jobs and prosperity. What they disagree on is how to get there.

The idea that wanting jobs and prosperity makes Britain “Tory” is ludicrous.

re: “I am very curious, do you all remember that great period in time before the Euro was introduced? Any one against the idea was labelled a “has been” or an “xenophobic little Englander” despite any amount of economic sense given as reason.”

Strange. As I recall the reasons put forward for staying out of the Euro had nothing to do with economics at all, but tended to involve primarily ranting about an evil Eurocratic “superstate” coming to take the Queen away, and malevolent Eurocrats forcing us all to carry out continuous health and safety assessments of our own toenails (or whatever) just because they hate Britishness. Oh yes, and BAN CHRISTMAS, because naturally all bad foreign people want to do that.

So yeah, the Eurosceptics were right to oppose joining the Euro, but not for the right reasons, by and large. If they had a coherent economic argument against it, they certainly didn’t spend much time talking about it.

LoL at the Euro fanatics, the economic reasoning against was voiced rather loudly, in fact they said pretty much exactly what was going to happen, I am not sure if the fanatics just haven’t got the guts to admit they wrong, who knows who cares, how ever TUC has been campaigning hard on this one, I am curious of there track record.

“As I recall the reasons put forward for staying out of the Euro had nothing to do with economics at all, ”

And as I recall, being one of those doing the shouting, it was all about economics.

Searching back, the earliest I can find myself on the internet is 2000, 2001, on Usenet. Where I was shouting that the euro wouldn’t work because it was not an optimal currency area.

Your memory might be different but I can prove what I was saying….

Or, you know, they could just be financially literate. The FTT will increase, not reduce, price volatility, reduce GDP (as even the EU itself says), not raise any net revenue (as even the EU says) and the economic burden will not be carried by banks but by all users of financial services. You know, the general citizenry

I do so like the way the competitive mechanism of the market completely crumbles when it suits your donors, Timothy.

“I do so like the way the competitive mechanism of the market completely crumbles when it suits your donors, Timothy.”

These results are results of the way that markets work. If we didn’t have markets working as they do then of course both of course the results, plus the whining about the tax, would go away…..

@ Trooper

“the reason the Sheriff of Nottingham was the bad guy was not because he was rich, but because he was a tyrant and a plunderer. His wealth was coerced out of the people.Robin wasn’t stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he was implementing a tax rebate. ”

Oh, for god’s sake. Here, second line of the Wikipedia entry on the guy: “A highly skilled archer and swordsman, he is known for “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”.”

As he’s not a real person, there’s no problem with you interpreting the myth in a way that’s in keeping with your philosophy. But don’t lie about how the myth is often portrayed and then accuse the people who talk about a “Robin Hood tax” of getting it wrong; you don’t own folklore. It turns what is already a specious point into something wholly dishonest.

“He also had a very libertarian attitude towards the right to keep and bear arms.”

Yes, but not really relevant here, is it?

@ Chaise,

I’m not denying the phrase ‘steal from the rich, give to the poor’ is used to describe Robin Hood, I am merely explaining that, in the context of the Robin Hood story, the rich equals the state, and the state is the enemy, of Robin and all the commoners – the poor – who are exploited and denied justice by the minions of the state.

He despises and attacks tax-collectors, therefore it’s not appropriate to name a tax after him, any more than naming a Burger King meal after Linda McCartney.

“Tim Worstall” != “all the people campaigning against UK Euro entry”.

Tim *was* making the (still completely spurious, but that’s a separate point) argument about optimal currency areas. The vast majority of anti commentators, however, were gibbering about the Queen on their money, metric martyrs, health and safety and political correctness gone mad.

Of course, if Britain had entered the euro (as the US wanted), then the ECB would have been structured very differently, Germany would no longer have been dominant, and the entire history of the project would have been completely different. Not that it would definitely have worked, but that it would have been sufficiently different from the way it did happen to make “look what did happen” critiques pointless.

@ 24 Trooper Thompson

“I’m not denying the phrase ‘steal from the rich, give to the poor’ is used to describe Robin Hood, I am merely explaining that, in the context of the Robin Hood story, the rich equals the state, and the state is the enemy, of Robin and all the commoners – the poor – who are exploited and denied justice by the minions of the state.

He despises and attacks tax-collectors, therefore it’s not appropriate to name a tax after him, any more than naming a Burger King meal after Linda McCartney.”

Well, the rich doesn’t equal the state, as he has non-state targets. And in some versions he’s shown as a big supporter of the head of state. The point is that, in the stories, the state are the rich bullies. It’s still a rich vs poor distinction. And the state is collecting taxes to pay corrupt and greedy authority figures and fund a war, not redistribution – something that Robin has taken into his own hands. So the Robin Hood tax would, in part, do the thing that Robin dedicated his life to doing. Of course he’d approve, if we’re using the version of “he” as understood through the lense of C20th/21st society.

“The vast majority of anti commentators, however, were gibbering about the Queen on their money”

You mean the vast majority who were presented to you on tv by your living media.

“Of course, if Britain had entered the euro (as the US wanted), then the ECB would have been structured very differently, Germany would no.”

Ah right, they were right only because they were wrong, in fact it was all there fault..fanatic….. Yet now one has answered my question yet.

“Well, the rich doesn’t equal the state, as he has non-state targets”

The rich are members of the ruling caste – N.B. not the ruling class, these are rigid castes, with virtually no movement permissible between them. They are most usually Norman French types, in contrast to the Saxon peasantry. This ruling caste comprises the state, such as it was, and I would certainly include the bishops of the chuch within that.

“And in some versions he’s shown as a big supporter of the head of state. ”

Yeah, maybe he’s more of a minarchist than an anarcho-capitalist. What he clearly asserts is that the head of state is bound by the law, and if the head of state or his minions break the law, they have no right to demand allegiance.

“And the state is collecting taxes to pay corrupt and greedy authority figures and fund a war …”

… plus ca change …

“… not redistribution – something that Robin has taken into his own hands.”

All taxation is redistribution. What Robin does is take it from the big thieves (the state), who are redistributing it from the poor to themselves, and return it to the people from whom they stole it / taxed it. Robin Hood is motivated by a desire to fight injustice more than anything else.

john b

I also opposed the Euro from the start. In fact I opposed it on macroeconomic grounds long before it became reality. I fell out with my macro lecturer about this in 1991 when I was doing my MBA (he was a strong supporter of a single currency and didn’t think economic convergence mattered very much). Cost me a distinction in that module.

But my arguments against the single currency were not only economic. I did not think it possible for countries with such very divergent histories and cultures to give up enough of their desire for self-determination to make a common currency work. I have not changed my opinion on this, and current events would seem to be proving me right.