Oct. 29 #RobinHood Global March
robinhoodtax.org
This article is available in:
ADBUSTERS TACTICAL BRIEFING #15
Alright you redeemers, rebels and radicals out there,
We're living through a magical moment … #OCCUPYWALLSTREET has catalyzed into an international insurgency for democracy … the mood at our assemblies is electric … people who go there are drawn into a Gandhian spirit of camaraderie and hope for a new kind of future. Across the globe the 99% are marching! You have inspired more than you know. People are digging into Act One of the long Spring.
Its now time to amp up the edgy theatrics … deviant pranks, subversive performances and playful détournements of all kinds. Open your insurrectionary imagination. Anything, from a bottom-up transformation of the global economy to changing the way we eat, the way we get around, the way we live, love and communicate … be the spark that sustains a global revolution of everyday life!
As the movement matures, lets consider a response to our critics. Lets occupy the core of our global system. Lets dethrone the greed that defines this new century. Lets work to define our first great demand.
OCTOBER 29 – #ROBINHOOD GLOBAL MARCH
This is a proposal for the general assemblies of the Occupy movement.
Eight years ago, on February 15, 2003, upwards of 15 million people in sixty countries marched together to stop President Bush from invading Iraq … a huge chunk of humanity lived for one day without dead time and glimpsed the power of a united people's movement. Now we have an opportunity to repeat that performance on an even larger scale.
On October 29, on the eve of the G20 Leaders Summit in France, let's the people of the world rise up and demand that our G20 leaders immediately impose a 1% #ROBINHOOD tax on all financial transactions and currency trades. Let's send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3-trillion easy money that's sloshing around the global casino each day – enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world.
Take this idea to your local general assembly and join your comrades in the streets on October 29.
for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ
occupywallstreet.org / 29october.net / occupytogether.org / Facebook / Twitter
PS. Check what's being said about the Occupy movement
- Democracy Now!: Hundreds of Thousands March Against Inequity, Big Banks
- Chris Hedges: A Movement Too Big to Fail
- Elliot Spitzer: "Occupy Wall Street Has Already Won"
- Matt Taibbi: Hit Bankers Where it Hurts
- Rose Ann DeMoro: Nurses to Obama: Push for a Global Financial Transaction Tax, Now!
940 comments on the article “Oct. 29 #RobinHood Global March”
Displaying 901 - 910 of 940
Page 91 of 94
Anonymous
Do you think food prices would increase because of the drop in liquidity as speculators are wiped out by a Robin Hood Tax? Surely the farmers would demand a higher premium if there is more volatility and uncertainty because they cannot hedge their crops (no speculator taking the other side of the trade so there is noone to "hedge" with)?
I think the net result might be more volatile and higher food prices for the poorest nations that depend on food imports.
Anonymous
Do you think food prices would increase because of the drop in liquidity as speculators are wiped out by a Robin Hood Tax? Surely the farmers would demand a higher premium if there is more volatility and uncertainty because they cannot hedge their crops (no speculator taking the other side of the trade so there is noone to "hedge" with)?
I think the net result might be more volatile and higher food prices for the poorest nations that depend on food imports.
Anonymous
Higher food prices would mean starvation for some people. So that is an important consideration - a negative aspect of any such Robin Hood Tax. I don't think it could be avoided.
Maybe more concerning than the hit that pensioners would receive due to the additional taxes on their retirement savings.
Anonymous
Higher food prices would mean starvation for some people. So that is an important consideration - a negative aspect of any such Robin Hood Tax. I don't think it could be avoided.
Maybe more concerning than the hit that pensioners would receive due to the additional taxes on their retirement savings.
Anonymous
You are incorrect. Futures markets (trading on regulated exchanges) did not cause the financial crisis. They pose no systemic risk whatsoever because there is a central clearing house.
The problems with derivatives come from the "over-the-counter" derivative products NOT TRADED ON REGULATED EXCHANGES but offered by banks to customers. They do pose systemic risk with deposit margin posted by buyers and sellers to insure against daily price movements.
Be clear that there is a world of difference between exchange traded and over the counter derivatives!
Indeed, futures markets have a long and successful record in helping farmers to achieve the best price and avoiding food supply shortages.
The first organized grain futures trading in the U.S. began in places such as New York City and Buffalo, but the development of “modern” futures, which are a unique type of forward agreement, began in Chicago in the 1840s. With the construction of the railroads, Chicago began to emerge as a center for transportation between midwestern producers and east coast population centers. The city was a natural hub for trade, but the trading that took place there was inefficient and unorganized until a group of Chicago-based business men formed the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago in 1848. The Board was a member-owned organization that offered a centralized location for cash trading of a variety of goods as well as trading of forward contracts. Members served as brokers who facilitated trading in return for commissions.
As trading of forward contracts increased, the Board decided that standardizing those contracts would streamline the trading and delivery processes. Instead of individualized contracts, which took a great deal of time to negotiate and fulfill, people interested in the forward trading of corn at the Board, for example, were asked to trade contracts that were identical in terms of quantity, quality, delivery month and terms, all as established by the exchange. The only thing left for traders to negotiate was price and the number of contracts.
These standardized forwards were essentially the first modern futures contracts. They were unlike other forwards in that they could only be traded at the exchange that created them, and only at certain designated times. They were also different from other forwards in that the bids, offers and negotiated prices of the trades were made public by the exchange. This practice established futures exchanges as venues for “price discovery” in U.S. markets.
In contrast to customized contracts, standardized futures contracts were easy to trade, since all trades were simply re-negotiations of price, and they usually changed hands many times before expiration. People who wanted to make a profit based on a fortuitous price change, or alternatively, who wished to cut mounting losses as quickly as possible, could “offset” a futures contract before expiration by engaging in an opposite trade: buying a contract which they had previously sold (or “gone short”), or selling a contract which they had previously bought (or “gone long”).
The usefulness of futures trading became apparent, and a number of other futures exchanges were established throughout the country in the decades that followed. The Chicago Butter and Egg Board was founded in 1898 and evolved into Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in 1919. Futures exchanges also opened in Milwaukee, New York, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Memphis, New Orleans and elsewhere. Chicago, however, became the most influential and predominant location for futures trading in the U.S.
Anonymous
You are incorrect. Futures markets (trading on regulated exchanges) did not cause the financial crisis. They pose no systemic risk whatsoever because there is a central clearing house.
The problems with derivatives come from the "over-the-counter" derivative products NOT TRADED ON REGULATED EXCHANGES but offered by banks to customers. They do pose systemic risk with deposit margin posted by buyers and sellers to insure against daily price movements.
Be clear that there is a world of difference between exchange traded and over the counter derivatives!
Indeed, futures markets have a long and successful record in helping farmers to achieve the best price and avoiding food supply shortages.
The first organized grain futures trading in the U.S. began in places such as New York City and Buffalo, but the development of “modern” futures, which are a unique type of forward agreement, began in Chicago in the 1840s. With the construction of the railroads, Chicago began to emerge as a center for transportation between midwestern producers and east coast population centers. The city was a natural hub for trade, but the trading that took place there was inefficient and unorganized until a group of Chicago-based business men formed the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago in 1848. The Board was a member-owned organization that offered a centralized location for cash trading of a variety of goods as well as trading of forward contracts. Members served as brokers who facilitated trading in return for commissions.
As trading of forward contracts increased, the Board decided that standardizing those contracts would streamline the trading and delivery processes. Instead of individualized contracts, which took a great deal of time to negotiate and fulfill, people interested in the forward trading of corn at the Board, for example, were asked to trade contracts that were identical in terms of quantity, quality, delivery month and terms, all as established by the exchange. The only thing left for traders to negotiate was price and the number of contracts.
These standardized forwards were essentially the first modern futures contracts. They were unlike other forwards in that they could only be traded at the exchange that created them, and only at certain designated times. They were also different from other forwards in that the bids, offers and negotiated prices of the trades were made public by the exchange. This practice established futures exchanges as venues for “price discovery” in U.S. markets.
In contrast to customized contracts, standardized futures contracts were easy to trade, since all trades were simply re-negotiations of price, and they usually changed hands many times before expiration. People who wanted to make a profit based on a fortuitous price change, or alternatively, who wished to cut mounting losses as quickly as possible, could “offset” a futures contract before expiration by engaging in an opposite trade: buying a contract which they had previously sold (or “gone short”), or selling a contract which they had previously bought (or “gone long”).
The usefulness of futures trading became apparent, and a number of other futures exchanges were established throughout the country in the decades that followed. The Chicago Butter and Egg Board was founded in 1898 and evolved into Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) in 1919. Futures exchanges also opened in Milwaukee, New York, St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Memphis, New Orleans and elsewhere. Chicago, however, became the most influential and predominant location for futures trading in the U.S.
Anonymous
Sorry I made an error in the second line of the second paragraph when copying and pasting!
I meant to say, "over-the-counter" derivative products NOT traded on regulated exchanges do cause systemic risk. Futures markets do not cause systemic risk.
Sorry for the confusion.
Anonymous
Sorry I made an error in the second line of the second paragraph when copying and pasting!
I meant to say, "over-the-counter" derivative products NOT traded on regulated exchanges do cause systemic risk. Futures markets do not cause systemic risk.
Sorry for the confusion.
Anonymous
I don't see how we can have a productive discussion on whether this tax should be supported or not before we have come to a consensus on what it is, what it aims to do, and who will be implementing it. So far, most of the criticisms that I've been reading are based on misunderstandings of how the tax works and the misconception that the poor and middle classes will be negatively impacted by it.
I suggest that people actually go and visit robinhoodtax.org, read the FAQ, and recognize the diversity of the supporters: yes, you can count Bill Gates among them, but you also have faith leaders, major trade unions, Nobel-prize winning economists, and charities voicing their support for this initiative. It's not just the wealthy who will benefit. It's all of us because the point of the tax is to fight poverty and climate change domestically as well as abroad, and there is not one person on this planet who is not affected by these realities, including those whose short-sightedness prevent them from seeing how their lives are connected to those around them.
Taxation is not theft. Taxation is your contribution as a citizen. Taxation is what enables us to have access to public roads, public highways, public schools, public hospitals, public libraries, a postal service, and so much more. Frankly, I don't see how a 0.05% tax on stocks, bonds, foreign currency, and derivatives could send so many people riling since that's what "financial transactions" refers to in this case. It's NOT a tax on money transfers, on purchases or sales, on retirement savings, or check deposits and withdrawals. Again, please read the FAQ to make sure that we're on the same page in terms of what we're discussing. I've copied and pasted a few of the responses that I found helpful in explaining what the Robin Hood Tax is all about. Note that the idea is being debated within the context of the UK, although there are campaigns in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Spain as well.
WHY TAX THE FINANCIAL SECTOR?
Because it's responsible for a big part of the mess we're in.
Because it has an obligation to all of us to help clear it up.
Because it is the most profitable industry on earth, 26 times more profitable than the average business.
Because it is under taxed - so it can afford to do so. A tiny tax on the financial sector could generate £20 billion annually in the UK alone. That's enough to protect schools and hospitals. Enough to stop massive cuts across the public sector. Enough to transform lives around the world – and to deal with the new climate challenges our world is facing.
Because so far, the cost of the financial crisis to the UK economy, as calculated by the International Monetary Fund, is that UK government debt will be 40% higher. That 40% equates to £737 million pounds, or £28,000 pounds for every taxpayer in the country. Having to pay back that debt means cuts in vital services on which millions of people around the country rely.
Because according to the Bank of England, the fact that the government will not let the big banks go bust means that they effectively get a subsidy of £100 billion pounds from the UK tax payer each year. But the banks have already started to report record profits and pay themselves enormous bonuses once again. The 2010 bonus pot for the UK is 6 billion pounds, enough to pay the salaries of 340,000 nurses in the UK, or provide free healthcare for 250 million people in developing countries.
Because the IMF and many other financial commentators believe that the financial sector is under taxed, and has grown to become dangerously large and destabilising for the global economy, as we saw when the crisis hit in 2008. FSA Chairman Lord Turner has described a portion of the financial sector as ‘socially useless’.
Because it's time for the financial sector to make a greater contribution to the society it serves.
WON’T COMPANIES JUST AVOID THE TAX OR MOVE THEIR BUSINESSES OFFSHORE?
This is a common and misguided criticism, and one that's easy to answer.
The short answer is no. As the IMF says, financial transaction taxes (FTTs) “do not automatically drive out financial activity to an unacceptable extent”.
FTTs can be designed so that they are very difficult to avoid. The best example of this is the UK, where we have a stamp duty of 0.5% on all share transactions. The UK’s major competitors do not have this and there certainly is no global agreement, yet it is a successful FTT that raises around £5 billion pounds each year. It is designed so it can’t be avoided and London remains one of the biggest stock markets in the world.
There are many reasons banks would not leave the UK, not least that they need a big enough government that they know will bail them out if things go wrong. There are not many governments with the ability or willingness to provide this implicit guarantee, certainly not the Cayman Islands or even Switzerland.
Time zones are critical for financial transactions, with London being ideally situated between Asian and US markets. This means that banks and other financial institutions cannot all move to New York as a major financial centre will still be needed in Europe. Germany, the main competitor in the European time zone is already committed to implementing an FTT.
The highly automated and centralised nature of many financial transactions makes an FTT very hard to avoid, and easy to collect. In recent years, FTTs have been introduced very effectively in more than 40 countries around the world.
In 2010 the UK government implemented a one off tax on the bonuses of bankers but despite warnings from the City this did not lead to any major exodus. In fact recruitment is up.
WON’T BANKS JUST PASS THE COSTS ON TO US?
No, because financial transaction taxes are targeted at casino banking operations they can easily be designed in a way that protects the investments of ordinary people and businesses. Just like other taxes, specific exemptions and punitive measures can be built in to protect, for example, lending to businesses or exchanging holiday money.
The IMF has studied who will end up paying transaction taxes, and has concluded that they would in all likelihood be ‘highly progressive’. This means they would fall on the richest institutions and individuals in society, in a similar way to capital gains tax. This is in complete contrast to VAT, which falls disproportionately on the poorest people.
The financial sector is highly competitive, which also makes it less likely that institutions will pass on the costs to customers because they will lose business to others who don’t.
CAN FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAXES REDUCE SPECULATION AND RISKY FINANCIAL ACTIVITY?
In recent years there has been an explosion in high frequency trading - transactions that happen every few seconds. There has also been a huge increase in derivatives, making the volume of financial transactions increase to more than 70 times the size of the world economy. Many serious commentators believe this volume is dangerously large and de-stabilising, and that many of these transactions are, in the words of Lord Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority, ‘socially useless’.
Many of the most speculative, risky and socially useless transactions are based on very small profit margins, meaning that even at a very low rate such as 0.05%, an FTT would shrink the size of the market by reducing the profitability of the most risky transactions. Many economists support the FTT for this reason.
At the Robin Hood Tax campaign we are principally supportive of an FTT because of the money it will raise to help the poor. However, if it also acts to reduce risky gambling and make the world economy safer that can only be a good thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who have been basing your reaction on Patrick Henningsen's op-piece published on Infowars.com a few days ago (and it certainly seems like some of you have), consider your sources. Don't close your mind on an idea before you know what is being proposed. I'm sure there will be unintended consequences to this tax as there are with any large-scale initiatives, but we cannot discuss them unless we have a common understanding of the tax itself.
-- Michelle
Boston, MA
Anonymous
I don't see how we can have a productive discussion on whether this tax should be supported or not before we have come to a consensus on what it is, what it aims to do, and who will be implementing it. So far, most of the criticisms that I've been reading are based on misunderstandings of how the tax works and the misconception that the poor and middle classes will be negatively impacted by it.
I suggest that people actually go and visit robinhoodtax.org, read the FAQ, and recognize the diversity of the supporters: yes, you can count Bill Gates among them, but you also have faith leaders, major trade unions, Nobel-prize winning economists, and charities voicing their support for this initiative. It's not just the wealthy who will benefit. It's all of us because the point of the tax is to fight poverty and climate change domestically as well as abroad, and there is not one person on this planet who is not affected by these realities, including those whose short-sightedness prevent them from seeing how their lives are connected to those around them.
Taxation is not theft. Taxation is your contribution as a citizen. Taxation is what enables us to have access to public roads, public highways, public schools, public hospitals, public libraries, a postal service, and so much more. Frankly, I don't see how a 0.05% tax on stocks, bonds, foreign currency, and derivatives could send so many people riling since that's what "financial transactions" refers to in this case. It's NOT a tax on money transfers, on purchases or sales, on retirement savings, or check deposits and withdrawals. Again, please read the FAQ to make sure that we're on the same page in terms of what we're discussing. I've copied and pasted a few of the responses that I found helpful in explaining what the Robin Hood Tax is all about. Note that the idea is being debated within the context of the UK, although there are campaigns in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Spain as well.
WHY TAX THE FINANCIAL SECTOR?
Because it's responsible for a big part of the mess we're in.
Because it has an obligation to all of us to help clear it up.
Because it is the most profitable industry on earth, 26 times more profitable than the average business.
Because it is under taxed - so it can afford to do so. A tiny tax on the financial sector could generate £20 billion annually in the UK alone. That's enough to protect schools and hospitals. Enough to stop massive cuts across the public sector. Enough to transform lives around the world – and to deal with the new climate challenges our world is facing.
Because so far, the cost of the financial crisis to the UK economy, as calculated by the International Monetary Fund, is that UK government debt will be 40% higher. That 40% equates to £737 million pounds, or £28,000 pounds for every taxpayer in the country. Having to pay back that debt means cuts in vital services on which millions of people around the country rely.
Because according to the Bank of England, the fact that the government will not let the big banks go bust means that they effectively get a subsidy of £100 billion pounds from the UK tax payer each year. But the banks have already started to report record profits and pay themselves enormous bonuses once again. The 2010 bonus pot for the UK is 6 billion pounds, enough to pay the salaries of 340,000 nurses in the UK, or provide free healthcare for 250 million people in developing countries.
Because the IMF and many other financial commentators believe that the financial sector is under taxed, and has grown to become dangerously large and destabilising for the global economy, as we saw when the crisis hit in 2008. FSA Chairman Lord Turner has described a portion of the financial sector as ‘socially useless’.
Because it's time for the financial sector to make a greater contribution to the society it serves.
WON’T COMPANIES JUST AVOID THE TAX OR MOVE THEIR BUSINESSES OFFSHORE?
This is a common and misguided criticism, and one that's easy to answer.
The short answer is no. As the IMF says, financial transaction taxes (FTTs) “do not automatically drive out financial activity to an unacceptable extent”.
FTTs can be designed so that they are very difficult to avoid. The best example of this is the UK, where we have a stamp duty of 0.5% on all share transactions. The UK’s major competitors do not have this and there certainly is no global agreement, yet it is a successful FTT that raises around £5 billion pounds each year. It is designed so it can’t be avoided and London remains one of the biggest stock markets in the world.
There are many reasons banks would not leave the UK, not least that they need a big enough government that they know will bail them out if things go wrong. There are not many governments with the ability or willingness to provide this implicit guarantee, certainly not the Cayman Islands or even Switzerland.
Time zones are critical for financial transactions, with London being ideally situated between Asian and US markets. This means that banks and other financial institutions cannot all move to New York as a major financial centre will still be needed in Europe. Germany, the main competitor in the European time zone is already committed to implementing an FTT.
The highly automated and centralised nature of many financial transactions makes an FTT very hard to avoid, and easy to collect. In recent years, FTTs have been introduced very effectively in more than 40 countries around the world.
In 2010 the UK government implemented a one off tax on the bonuses of bankers but despite warnings from the City this did not lead to any major exodus. In fact recruitment is up.
WON’T BANKS JUST PASS THE COSTS ON TO US?
No, because financial transaction taxes are targeted at casino banking operations they can easily be designed in a way that protects the investments of ordinary people and businesses. Just like other taxes, specific exemptions and punitive measures can be built in to protect, for example, lending to businesses or exchanging holiday money.
The IMF has studied who will end up paying transaction taxes, and has concluded that they would in all likelihood be ‘highly progressive’. This means they would fall on the richest institutions and individuals in society, in a similar way to capital gains tax. This is in complete contrast to VAT, which falls disproportionately on the poorest people.
The financial sector is highly competitive, which also makes it less likely that institutions will pass on the costs to customers because they will lose business to others who don’t.
CAN FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAXES REDUCE SPECULATION AND RISKY FINANCIAL ACTIVITY?
In recent years there has been an explosion in high frequency trading - transactions that happen every few seconds. There has also been a huge increase in derivatives, making the volume of financial transactions increase to more than 70 times the size of the world economy. Many serious commentators believe this volume is dangerously large and de-stabilising, and that many of these transactions are, in the words of Lord Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority, ‘socially useless’.
Many of the most speculative, risky and socially useless transactions are based on very small profit margins, meaning that even at a very low rate such as 0.05%, an FTT would shrink the size of the market by reducing the profitability of the most risky transactions. Many economists support the FTT for this reason.
At the Robin Hood Tax campaign we are principally supportive of an FTT because of the money it will raise to help the poor. However, if it also acts to reduce risky gambling and make the world economy safer that can only be a good thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of you who have been basing your reaction on Patrick Henningsen's op-piece published on Infowars.com a few days ago (and it certainly seems like some of you have), consider your sources. Don't close your mind on an idea before you know what is being proposed. I'm sure there will be unintended consequences to this tax as there are with any large-scale initiatives, but we cannot discuss them unless we have a common understanding of the tax itself.
-- Michelle
Boston, MA
Pages
Add a new comment