|
|
| Author |
Message |
| and |
This post is not being displayed .
|
and
World Chat Champion
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Raffles |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Raffles
World Chat Champion
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Karma :  
|
 Posted: 23:06 - 12 Feb 2010  Post subject: Re: Robin Hood tax on banks? |
 |
|
What Ulthar said.
+ 1 
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Poseidon |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Poseidon
World Chat Champion
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pa_broon74 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pa_broon74
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 18:11 - 14 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Agree with most of that, although I don't agree with this Robin Hood tax. Any thing thw government (regardless of flavour) touches in terms of money is never black and white. If you want to raise funds for charity, the last thing you want to do is socialise it, the government are crap when it comes to efficiency.
I don;t know exactly how it worked, but lloyds TSB had a rule written into their constitution that forced it to give away a percentage of it's profits to charity, (I remember getting about 25k of them for a youth project.)
I reckon a better idea would be for there to be a law that if a bank wants to ummm, be a bank, it must be made to give a percentage of its profits away. Lloyds TSB had a sort of committee of people who went arounf evaluating requests for money, it was efficient and worked well. (They've since stopped taking new requests mind.)
Thats what I'd do. The one thing private industry are good at is being total tight arses, they'd give the money away far more effectively than the government would.
____________________
Didn't catch anything. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pa_broon74 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pa_broon74
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 19:59 - 14 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Another idea.
A tax on stupid adverts, those cretins in the Halifax advert with their stupid radio station, or that twat mithering on about being worried about getting sweaty pits during a twatish presentation, or those adverts with the toothpaste which is supposed to stop sensitive teeth (it doesn't) and the dental 'experts' they claim to contain, (actors.)
The list is endless. They should also appoint me to decide at what rate the advert will be taxed, the level will also depend on how often the company in questions wants to ram it down our throats.
DFS for example would be taxed at something approaching 400% while DVLA 'reminder adverts' would be taxed out of existence.
The gocompare advert would be taxed lightly as I like it, but the we buy any car crowd probably wouldn't be able to use TV advertising again as it would be prohibitively expensive, (although I might miss the dancing.)
It's a serious money spinner.
____________________
Didn't catch anything. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| and |
This post is not being displayed .
|
and
World Chat Champion
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pa_broon74 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pa_broon74
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 00:50 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| ulthar wrote: | Pa - the thing is, a lot of businesses are already involved in charity work themselves and donate some of their profits to causes and provide sponsorships so the Tobin Tax is not doing anything that isn't already happening. I believe private companies should be allowed to choose whether they want to be involved in charity work or not and where their money can go. I do not believe that the government should dictate what a private company should do with its money. There should be no law and the government shouldn't be interfering. The most the government should be doing is collecting taxes, setting rules, guidelines and regulations.
|
True, but a lot of business' don't and currently unless it's written into a banks constitution, they don't need to. The last thing we need is yet another government quango deciding how to spend the cash raised by a tobin tax. All that would happen is, the money raised by the tobin tax would end up paying for the quango.
I don't think big companies should be given the choice about giving a portion of their profits to charity, its just compassionate capitalism. The government already dictate what companies do with a percentage of their money, in the form of tax. The problem is the ferocious greed that takes place, perhaps an apolitical law that goes some way to ensure a company behaves responsibly and gives back to the commmunity from which it extracts a profit, crucially though: in an strictly non-political way.
Also, technically, the govenrment are supposed to be elected by us. So really, if a company is behaving irresponsibly what other way do we the public have of regulating the behaviour of big business. I realise in the real world that's a bit of a crock, but there is no other way we can change how a bank (for example) behaves except by bringing in legislation via parliament.
Having a law that says companies who make over a certain % of profit relative to turn over has to give a small percentage of it away would be far more effective than a tobin tax. It would also take the edge of the rabid capitalism thats been going on over the past few years.
I just think it would set the tone.
____________________
Didn't catch anything. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
| Posted: 12:03 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| ulthar wrote: | Why did you vote yes? What are your reasons? Also: https://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html
Pa - the thing is, a lot of businesses are already involved in charity work themselves and donate some of their profits to causes and provide sponsorships so the Tobin Tax is not doing anything that isn't already happening. I believe private companies should be allowed to choose whether they want to be involved in charity work or not and where their money can go. I do not believe that the government should dictate what a private company should do with its money. There should be no law and the government shouldn't be interfering. The most the government should be doing is collecting taxes, setting rules, guidelines and regulations.
Poseidon - one of my concerns is that the Tobin Tax could affect ordinary customers who deal with banks only for personal banking. Not that long ago, there were suggestions that the banks were going to introduce fees for all cash machines if they were to lose their court battle on over-draft fees. People were wanting to claim back their over-draft fees, dating back years and amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds, that if they won the court case, it would have had dire effects for everyone who has a bank account. On principle it may have sounded a good idea for those customers who felt incensed about the over-draft fees but in reality, these people would have got their fees repaid and the banks would want to recouperate their loss by increases charges and introduce fees for other services effectively making the win pointless. I don't see why I should be charged money on my current account or to withdraw cash because some dumb idiot can't manage their own money. |
Why did I vote "yes"? Because every single penny made by the banks comes out of the common working man's pocket, that's why. So it would be nice to see some of it clawed back and put to a better use than funding some worthless parasite's Lambo.
There are OAP's who have worked their nuts off all their lives, doing real work, paying taxes and NI through the nose, who freeze to death because they can't afford to heat their homes. Some of the money raised by a robinhood tax could go towards keeping them in the warmth they've earned but can't afford.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!" |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
smegballs
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| D O G |
This post is not being displayed .
|
D O G
World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 13:28 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| Hetzer wrote: | Which is why, in a sane world, there needs to be legislation controlling all profit ratios. |
That would be an impossibility.
Firstly, which ratio do you pick? There are a dozen often used, all equally worthy of monitoring, but which are tailored to identify certain traits. Getting over that hurdle would be a gargantuan task.
Secondly, what period do you use to monitor the ratio? Each year? An average over 3/5/10 years? What if I made a loss last year, do I get any slack next year?
Do you tailor the ratio to each industry, a businesses' point in it's life cycle, it's product mix, and shifts in that product mix, etc etc etc.
Do we look at cash generation, and then what we use that cash for? Is it ok to make a big profit in one year, if you intend to invest all the cash in a project next year to generate further jobs/output? What if your (honest) intention is delayed by factor outside of your control, can you hold on to the cash then?
It is a hugely complex area, and getting a workable, monitorable set of regualtions in place would be, IMO, impossible, and probably more expensive and wasteful than just doing nothing.
Finally, it would only work if the legislation was introduced worldwide, otherwise businesses would leave the UK in droves. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| chris-red |
This post is not being displayed .
|
chris-red
Have you considered a TDM?
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 14:13 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
cough
https://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=191181&highlight=robin
____________________
Well, you know what they say. If you want to save the world, you have to push a few old ladies down the stairs.
Skudd:- Perhaps she just thinks you are a window licker and is being nice just in case she becomes another Jill Dando.
WANTED:- Fujinon (Fuji) M42 (Screw on) lenses, let me know if you have anything. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| and |
This post is not being displayed .
|
and
World Chat Champion
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pa_broon74 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pa_broon74
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 21:50 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| ulthar wrote: | I don't see what is wrong with companies not being involved in charity work. I believe it should be a choice entirely decided by the company. They are providing people employment are they not? They are bringing money into the economy are they not? Are these things not helping the wider community as a whole? Is the government not recieving tax which can be used for aid? Why should the money they bring in be dictated by people not involved in the company? There are already laws dealing with the way companies conduct themselves.
|
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about when I say charity. I'm not talking about the corner shop donating 5% of its profits to the PDSA or Oxfam. I'm talking about companies that make profits measured in tens of millions or even billions.
Even then, I'm not talking about them giving 5% to Oxfam or the RSPB, they form their own charitable trust with their own employees, charitable organisations (Scouts, youth clubs, cat & dog homes) then fill out a form if they fulfil the criteria under which the charitable trust works. (I once got £35k from a place called The Tudor Trust who gave exclusively to youth projects.)
You're right when you say banks generate wealth, my problem is, they do it for an exceedingly thin wedge of society. Hundreds of call centre monkey jobs is fine, but that's not charity, that's the cost of doing business. It's a fair (or not) wage for a fair days work. You're job isn't merely an act of charity by the people who run the company you work for, it's them paying you for services rendered.
Finally, when you talk about these companies generating tax revenue for the government which is then used for aid etc. Perhaps you've never worked in Civil Service or local government, but the level of arrogance, the sheer disdain managers have for tax payers money is staggering. I'm trying to find a better example of an organisation squandering money so effectively, but I can't.
In terms of tax revenue, at best, big business generates a lot of tax pounds which the government just wastes. Also, the government don't do charity, not in it's purist sense, there's always an ulterior motive. A charitable trust can give money to worthy causes without political hindrance.
I'm down with capitalism, I like it. I don't like that it's so cut throat though. As I said, if we knew Barclays was lodging 5% of the 11 billion it made with an internal charitable trust for disbursement to worthy cause around the country, it would take the edge of the amount made and take the wind out the sales of the critics who say it's obscene.
____________________
Didn't catch anything. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
| Posted: 22:13 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| ulthar wrote: | I don't see what is wrong with companies not being involved in charity work. I believe it should be a choice entirely decided by the company. They are providing people employment are they not? They are bringing money into the economy are they not? Are these things not helping the wider community as a whole? Is the government not recieving tax which can be used for aid? Why should the money they bring in be dictated by people not involved in the company? There are already laws dealing with the way companies conduct themselves.
Hetzer -
Not all of the money banks make comes from ordinary people. Money will be coming in from other businesses by providing services. You are forgetting that there are people employed by banks who are not involved in the financial side of things and even other companies who gain business from banks through contracts. Its not a black and white system.
What defines real work? Manual labour versus office job? Neither are exclusive anymore. You can't have one and not the other. The problem of people not affording electricity bills is a problem between them and the energy companies. Why should banks subsidise energy companies? It wasn't the banks who privatised the energy companies and sold them off.
Some of the money from the Tobin Tax could go towards, this and that, this and that, this and that. Nevermind the knock-on effects for long term sustainability and employment. It would create more problems than it would solve. |
You're missing the big picture. Big business is predatory and parasitic, and any true benefit that is enjoyed by people as a result of it's activities is purely accidental. And that includes any products they sell, the intent is not to provide a product, the product is merely a means to extract money.
Having recognized that fundamental reality it is both just and reasonable to base basic principles upon it, which should be aimed at penalising big business in any way possible. And if not that, at the very least not to reward it.
Why is big business so? Because it is owned and/or operated by the most greedy and ruthless of our species, people with next to zero moral integrity or spiritual virtue. In nature we see the same thing...hyenas, vultures, etc. And you don't try to stroke those or give them a break, do you?
Stop regarding big business as a legitimate entity. It is not, it is an exploiter and plunderer and an enemy of humanity.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!" |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| smegballs |
This post is not being displayed .
|
smegballs
World Chat Champion
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
| Posted: 22:39 - 16 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| smegballs wrote: | | Hetzer wrote: |
Stop regarding big business as a legitimate entity. It is not, it is an exploiter and plunderer and an enemy of humanity. |
A good example here would be the US pharma industry. After making their drugs hugely expensive, and refusing to make generics, they decide to pressure lawmakers (oops I forgot in the US big business ARE the lawmakers) to pass laws banning the import of cheap generics into the states.
Result! Americans can only buy the overpriced drugs from the big firms, and if they don't pay over the odds for old drugs they die! Quite a compelling factor to shell out for overpriced drugs eh? |
And then we have the big scare over swine-flu, a more obviously manufactured terror campaign I can hardly imagine.
The very food and water we consume is poisoned to the point of causing an epidemic of cancers over the last century and more. The only concern of big business is making money using any tactic with which it can get away. And always on the ragged edge of that policy too, such that it is frequently caught...but rarely given more than a token penalty.
We enjoy huge benefits from it all...accidentally/incidentally...but at what ultimate cost?
Not that it really matters, life here is but an interlude, albeit constantly repeated. Which is why it would be nice to see things done better?
The one comforting thought is that all those responsible for the corporate and governmental depravity are doomed to judge themselves, and that judgement is right harsh. As they sow so shall they reap.
https://i499.photobucket.com/albums/rr356/Langnasen7/nice.jpg
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!" |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| D O G |
This post is not being displayed .
|
D O G
World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Itchy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Itchy
Super Spammer
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 12:12 - 17 Feb 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| D O G wrote: |
Isn't that the concern of all businesses, large or small? |
I'd disagree in that Anglocentric businesses the bottom line is god, and it is all important, EPS, etc everybody looks at that here, which is probably why take overs and mergers appear to be so common.
Asian businesses the bottom line isn't almighty, in that various big corporates like Hyundai grew from organic growth rather than hostile take overs.
The thought processes are completely different, in that in UK USA, you falsify your accounts to make them attractive enough for somebody to buy you out. Cadburys for example suckered Kraft to buy them out. This gives you instant access to brands and goodwill of the former company and allows you to make a bigger bottom line.
While Japanese firms, hey look other car makers are making some nice high end cars.... they decide to grow organically instead.
Though this is changing, and even Japanese firms are becoming bottom line profit centric which is destroying their reputation. Toyota for example cheaped out on parts and software to increase their bottom line. Sony cheaped out when they got an American CEO etc.
____________________
Spain 2008France 2007Big one 2009 We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will. In the end, your life will flash before your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Hetzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Hetzer
Super Spammer
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| D O G |
This post is not being displayed .
|
D O G
World Chat Champion
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 16 years, 134 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating