You say Tobin they say Robin

By | | ,
Comments Off on You say Tobin they say Robin

So after the G20 decided that a Tobin tax was a bad idea it has risen zombie like at the behest of varies lovies lefties and media pundits under the new name of The Robin hood tax. Which is far more fun sounding, though one has to ignore that Robin Hood was if the legends can be believed mainly against taxation, and has it’s own FaceBook page. Of course all of the problems pointed out last time about the Tobin tax still apply, it requires global enforcement else all of the transactions to be taxed will just change jurisdiction, it needs to be worded such that a minor change in the transactions won’t make them exempt and of course as observed by the Salted Slug if adding o.o5% was so painless the traders would already be charging 0.05% more. And all of that aside the banks will pass on these charges to theier customers in one form or another even if it’s just lower interest rates, and it will need to be administered and Governments don’t have a terribly good track record of move money from taxes to the “poor” very effectively. Oh and of course the banking crisis wasn’t caused by ForEx traders that a tobin tax is aimed at, but by poor credit and risk management. So the “Robin Hood” tax isn’t even going to affect the right group of “evil” bankers.

If people are so concerned about helping the poor why not ask the main parties the same question as Norman Tebbit is asking? Namely why are people that are considered to be so badly off they qualify for benefits at the same time expected to pay taxes? What sense can it make to pay one bunch of beauracrats to give them money whilst at the same time paying another lot to take it back off them? Could just not taking some taxes be a much simpler and better solution to helping the poor than trying to construct a globally agreed bureaucracy to take taxes from one group of people to give to another group of people that are also being taxed?

For those that say it would be used for the truly needy nations and not for the poor in the west, how well do you think that will work? Who’s going to decide which nations get to partake of this global bounty? Would it again not be simpler to just let these poorer nations off the debt they owe to other governments, or at least the interest? Or if that’s going to far how about removing the various trade barriers that help to stop the third world competing on a more even footing?

Of course if your goal isn’t to actually help the poor but rather to establish global control over banking and financial trading… do carry on.

Oh I should mention there is also a FaceBook page for people who think the Tobin tax is a stupid idea.

-1

Back to the blog with MPs being charged

By | | ,
Comments Off on Back to the blog with MPs being charged

I’ve been even quieter than usual as the last two weeks my free time was spent rapidly building props for a friend of mine called Preacher who for publicity and other reasons best known to himself was doing the Britains got Talent thing – oh and then there was sleeping. So I’m way behind on pretty much everything so may well go over stuff that’s already been covered by other people far better.

So as a fun place to start there’s the wonderful news that at least some of the corrupt or incompetent members of parliament are to actually face charges , something which will hopefully rumble on long enough to still be fresh in peoples minds when it comes to time to vote. Sadly of course it’s only four of them being charged so far even though 52% were found to have over claimed.

The four that have been charged are claiming that parliamentary privilege means they shouldn’t go to court but that instead accoridng to the 1689 bill of rights it should just be a matter for parliamentary authorities – but they don’t think they’re above the law oh no, of course not. We should also pay no attention that the three of them are using the law firm that usually represents Labour. There is of course the slight problem that if they can delay their day in court for long enough they may still get a rather handsome pay off, though of course if their colleagues so chose yet another bit of legislation could fix that.

The one thing that is making me suspect that they may actually all be incompetent rather than dishonest is the amazing video of Jim Devine explaining why he shouldn’t be charged. Also utterly failing to understand the difference between a budget and an allowance and the whole concept of false accounting. But then he does claim it was all OK because a whip told him so.

Meanwhile over at the Lords they can carry on troughing. As a final point the new body they’re bringing in to make sure we can’t complain in future when they feather their beds in this fashion is going to cost about six times the amount recovered from our MPs this time round – but just enforcing the rules as they existed and applying existing law would have been far too difficult and wouldn’t have allowed the government to be seen to be doing something.

0

A worrying sort of sense

By | | ,
Comments Off on A worrying sort of sense

Just read a rather disturbing article by Mr Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday (hat tip to The Salted Slug). Disturbing because it makes an awful lot of sense in suggesting that if we want rid of Labour and a real change in politics then the best thing could be if the Tory’s lose and Labour get in. As many others comment I’m not sure I could face voting Labour but Mr Hitchens reasoning is sound. Here’s a taster but go read the whole thing.

I give myself a great deal of trouble by attacking the Tories, the party most of my readers want to support. Why do I do this, condemning myself to many angry and often personally rude messages from affronted people? I could easily make everyone happy by quietly dropping this campaign. It would save me hours spent writing letters and e-mails to Tory loyalists who absurdly accuse me, of all people, of wanting to keep Labour in power.

But I cannot, because I think we now have a unique opportunity to remake British politics and recapture Britain from the people who have messed it up and trashed it for so long. The next election cannot change the government. But it can change the opposition – from an ineffectual, useless, compromised one, into an effective one genuinely opposed to what New Labour is doing.

And such an opposition, no longer weighed down by the awful record of the Tories and their miserable reputation, could throw New Labour into the sea, perhaps within five years of coming into being.

The destruction of the Tory Party, which is now both possible and desirable, is the essential first step to this. In our two-party system, new parties arise out of the collapse and splitting of those they seek to replace. They cannot be created until that collapse, and that split, have begun. A serious, undoubted and decisive defeat for the Tory Party at the next election would make this possible and likely. Such a defeat is possible, despite the events of the past few weeks, and can be aided by voters simply refusing to waste their votes on a party that is both likely to lose, and certain to betray them if it wins.

0