Originally posted by KazetNagorra While the principle might be a good one, it cannot work in practise because banks operate globally, and there is simply no global administration to collect and enforce such taxes, like sh76 already remarked.
By such logic, any tax on banks is unenforceable. Surely that is incorrect.
Originally posted by no1marauder Only if demand was inelastic and the market non-competitive.
I understand why in-elasticity of demand would matter (otherwise, price hikes would decrease over-all consumption), but why would a non-competitive market be necessary? If all of the competitors in the industry were under the same duress from the same tax (or whatever outside factor), wouldn't they all be able to (and have to, in fact) compensate in roughly the same manner?
Originally posted by sh76 I understand why in-elasticity of demand would matter (otherwise, price hikes would decrease over-all consumption), but why would a non-competitive market be necessary? If all of the competitors in the industry were under the same duress from the same tax (or whatever outside factor), wouldn't they all be able to (and have to, in fact) compensate in roughly the same manner?
They might or they might not. Some might decide to not raise the price to gain greater market share.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Well, no. Some things banks do are less mobile than others. Stock trading etc. is very mobile and would require a global tax.
It would be better to have a global tax. But I don't think such a tax imposed by individual countries would be totally avoidable by banks as you seem to imply.
Originally posted by no1marauder It would be better to have a global tax. But I don't think such a tax imposed by individual countries would be totally avoidable by banks as you seem to imply.
Well, if all the major stock exchanges introduce a significant tax people might go to the Timbuktu Stock Exchange instead. Most of the trading is done by computers now anyway.
Originally posted by sh76 If they were inclined to do that, they could lower their prices independently of this external factor.
Exactly - which refutes your notion that there would necessarily be a rise in price if the tax was enacted. The effect of this or any other "external factor" on price is dependent on market conditions.
"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal -- under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would NECESSARILY skyrocket -- evern regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, naturual gas -- YOU NAME IT -- whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations. That will cost money -- they will pass it on to the consumer"
Originally posted by no1marauder Exactly - which refutes your notion that there would necessarily be a rise in price if the tax was enacted. The effect of this or any other "external factor" on price is dependent on market conditions.
I mean that if the "tax" or any other factor would cause all similarly situated competitors to raise a price by, say, $50, because it costs the Competitors an extra $50; and Competitor A decides to hold prices steady to gain market share... then Competitor A probably would have cut its price by $50 had the external factor not existed for the same reason. Either way, the external factor costs the consumer $50.
"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal -- under my plan of cap and trade system, electricity rates would NECESSAR ...[text shortened]... t money -- they will pass it on to the consumer"
If you like, you can even hear the audio.
We've been through this before; the right wing take on this comment is deliberately misleading and dishonest.
Originally posted by sh76 I mean that if the "tax" or any other factor would cause all similarly situated competitors to raise a price by, say, $50, because it costs the Competitors an extra $50; and Competitor A decides to hold prices steady to gain market share... then Competitor A probably would have cut its price by $50 had the external factor not existed for the same reason. Either way, the external factor costs the consumer $50.
Please take a night course in Economics; perhaps it will dissuade you from insisting on such nonsense.
Originally posted by whodey I have an even better idea, since we exhale CO2, why not have a monitor attached to us that counts the number of times we breath each day and then tax us on that? After all, carbon emissions are destroying us all and we produce it when we exhale, but hedge funds and finance institutions are not. Granted, they may be stealing all our money but at least they ...[text shortened]...
So if CO2 is a pollutant and we are denendent on it for our survival, what does that make us?
Originally posted by cadwah The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on banks, hedge funds and other finance institutions that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad.
It can start as low as 0.005 per cent – and average 0.05 per cent . But when levied on the billions of pounds sloshing round the global finance system every day through transactions such ...[text shortened]...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM
What do you think? Viable?
I'm all for it.
Robin Hood? I do not recall that he kept African dictators in funds.
13 May '10 21:25
The Robin Hood Tax
Back to Top