Germany's "Robin Hood" €57billion tax on EU banks: do you agree with it?

hatrickpatrick · 27-12-2011 06:44PM

I want to see banks pay directly for the mess they've made, not indirectly by adding taxes which affect PUNTERS' actions.

The simplest would be the following. Every cent of money given to banks as "bailouts" should in fact be treated as a loan and we should demand that the exchequer gets the lot of it back once the banks are in a position to repay it. We could even charge interest. Ireland is paying interest on its bailout loans, why the hell should banks not be treated exactly the same way?

Dionysus · 27-12-2011 06:59PM

No

Biggins wrote: »

I am just tired of frigging Germany and France shoving stuff down the throats of the people in Europe.
Honestly, if Sarkosy or Merkel was stood in front of me, I wouldnt be my normal polite self.

Unbelievable, Biggins. You should know way better than to see the words "Germany" or "France" and erupt into some British tabloid attack on the EU.

What, precisely, is your problem with this proposal, or is it simply the word 'Germany' which turned you against it?

I can't see anybody who believes in social justice, or justice per se, being against this. It's a hell of a lot better than tolerating their ridiculous profits, while increasing taxes for people far poorer.

Biggins · 27-12-2011 07:01PM

Dionysus wrote: »

Unbelievable, Biggins. You should know way better than to see the words "Germany" or "France" and erupt into some British tabloid attack on the EU.

I have nothing against the EU as such. Its a good idea if done right.
Its the bullying of two of its leaders I don't like. THATS ALL.
I'm sick and tired of their methods/antics!

44leto · 27-12-2011 07:06PM

There will be an exodus of European cash, this plan is as daft as the Euro.

Dionysus · 27-12-2011 07:08PM

No

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Id agree with it provided its not implemented on a "per transaction" basis which would only lead to it being passed onto customers in new/increased bank charges.

How exactly would this happen if it applied to all 27 EU states equally ? More bloody Daily Mail (or possibly Daily Telegraph -given who its proprieters are) inspired shyte I reckon.

I was sort of thinking the per transaction way would have a bit of a progressive nature about it; the more money you make, the more tax you pay. Either way, I'd expect they will pass on this tax no matter which way it's levied on them. It's not like HSBC with its $11.5 billion profits for the first six months of 2011 (!!!) is going to allow that profit to decline by not passing on this tax.

But the bothersome thing is that it needs unanimous agreement for it to be implemented across the EU, and Britain is out so, at the moment, it's looking like a Eurozone tax - which will make it unfair for Ireland. Everybody in the EU should take it, or nobody. Whatever happens, while I can see Britain's call for a global tax as having some merit, it's also a deliberately chimerical call. Britain is acting like a Fifth Column in the EU with this sort of thing; every other country agreed to it.

Dionysus · 27-12-2011 07:10PM

No

Biggins wrote: »

I have nothing against the EU as such. Its a good idea if done right.
Its the bullying of two of its leaders I don't like. THATS ALL.
I'm sick and tired of their methods/antics!

But is this idea a good idea?

Biggins · 27-12-2011 07:12PM

Dionysus wrote: »

But is this idea a good idea?

Apologies - but I'm unclear.
Is what a good idea?

Dionysus · 27-12-2011 07:14PM

No

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, I mean look at the malignant Bastards having the nerve to reign in big business.

Nodin wrote: »

For fucks sake....

Well said, Nodin. I swore I wouldn't post on Boards again today and I ended up signing in twice more to thank each of these posts. You fecker!

Now, I can't get off it.

Dionysus · 27-12-2011 07:16PM

No

Biggins wrote: »

Apologies - but I'm unclear.
Is what a good idea?

The German "Robin Hood" tax of 57 billion, Biggins!

Biggins · 27-12-2011 07:18PM

Dionysus wrote: »

The German "Robin Hood" tax of 57 billion, Biggins!

Honestly - I don't know.
My first thought was that (if they can do it) they might eventually just pass it back down to all customers in some form for them to pay/cover.

Nodin · 27-12-2011 07:19PM

No

Biggins wrote: »

I have nothing against the EU as such. Its a good idea if done right.
Its the bullying of two of its leaders I don't like. THATS ALL.
I'm sick and tired of their methods/antics!

Compared to what I'd do, given the chance, they're the soul of tact and restraint.

Biggins · 27-12-2011 07:20PM

Nodin wrote: »

Compared to what I'd do, given the chance, they're the soul of tact and restraint.

:eek:

Robdude · 27-12-2011 08:14PM

People don't realize how global the economy is.

There are lots and lots of companies that come to Ireland because they can pay less in taxes here than in their home country. They aren't Irish, they don't have loyalty to Ireland. They are head-quartered in another country....and they aren't very loyal to that country either....since they setup another corporation and offices here to pay less in taxes.

Now, this is bad for the other countries - but it's good for Ireland. These companies bring a lot of money and a lot of jobs. They still pay a lot in taxes, and everyone they employee pays a lot in taxes.

It *sounds* good to say, 'Yeah - let's pass laws that add taxes!' but what's really going to happen? What special and unique advantages does Ireland offer an international company that it can't find somewhere else?

And how are Irish financial institutes going to be competitive against companies that don't have to deal with these additional taxes?

Let's say you were a hard-working, well educated, talented investment banker. You could work anywhere in the world - and make a LOT of money. Would you work in Ireland where the company that hires you can't pay you nearly as much as a company in the United States or Canada or Australia because the Irish company has to pay transaction taxes the others don't? And, hell, even without this tax, you're still looking at paying almost double the taxes here compared to many other places.

44leto · 27-12-2011 08:18PM

Robdude wrote: »

People don't realize how global the economy is.

There are lots and lots of companies that come to Ireland because they can pay less in taxes here than in their home country. They aren't Irish, they don't have loyalty to Ireland. They are head-quartered in another country....and they aren't very loyal to that country either....since they setup another corporation and offices here to pay less in taxes.

Now, this is bad for the other countries - but it's good for Ireland. These companies bring a lot of money and a lot of jobs. They still pay a lot in taxes, and everyone they employee pays a lot in taxes.

It *sounds* good to say, 'Yeah - let's pass laws that add taxes!' but what's really going to happen? What special and unique advantages does Ireland offer an international company that it can't find somewhere else?

And how are Irish financial institutes going to be competitive against companies that don't have to deal with these additional taxes?

Let's say you were a hard-working, well educated, talented investment banker. You could work anywhere in the world - and make a LOT of money. Would you work in Ireland where the company that hires you can't pay you nearly as much as a company in the United States or Canada or Australia because the Irish company has to pay transaction taxes the others don't? And, hell, even without this tax, you're still looking at paying almost double the taxes here compared to many other places.

Good post
It also has to be said, if you had a million or so to invest, would you put it to work in a country that does not incur this new cost.

This plan is daft and it will be bad for Europe in the long run.

Yahew · 27-12-2011 10:52PM

No

Robdude wrote: »

People don't realize how global the economy is.

There are lots and lots of companies that come to Ireland because they can pay less in taxes here than in their home country. They aren't Irish, they don't have loyalty to Ireland. They are head-quartered in another country....and they aren't very loyal to that country either....since they setup another corporation and offices here to pay less in taxes.

Now, this is bad for the other countries - but it's good for Ireland. These companies bring a lot of money and a lot of jobs. They still pay a lot in taxes, and everyone they employee pays a lot in taxes.

It *sounds* good to say, 'Yeah - let's pass laws that add taxes!' but what's really going to happen? What special and unique advantages does Ireland offer an international company that it can't find somewhere else?

And how are Irish financial institutes going to be competitive against companies that don't have to deal with these additional taxes?

Let's say you were a hard-working, well educated, talented investment banker. You could work anywhere in the world - and make a LOT of money. Would you work in Ireland where the company that hires you can't pay you nearly as much as a company in the United States or Canada or Australia because the Irish company has to pay transaction taxes the others don't? And, hell, even without this tax, you're still looking at paying almost double the taxes here compared to many other places.

This isn't an Irish tax. Its a European tax. And Europe has the clout to say - move out of our jurisdiction and we will penalise you on your retail operations.

I don't buy the Too Big To Tax arguments.

Yahew · 27-12-2011 10:55PM

No

44leto wrote: »

Good post
It also has to be said, if you had a million or so to invest, would you put it to work in a country that does not incur this new cost.

This plan is daft and it will be bad for Europe in the long run.

The cost is on financial transactions which seem to apply to normal punters anyway - i.e changing money costs money.

donadoni · 27-12-2011 11:45PM

No

Biggins wrote: »

Yes the BONDHOLDERS - not the banks!

O' and she did a u-turn on that anyway!

You were arguing, that Germany and France are only propping up the banks so that their investment doesn't go down the tubes. That doesn't go along with Merkels stance on private sector involvement.

Yes she did indeed have to take a U turn on it. Mainly because most other governments were against it, especially the nations in bail out territory. Unfortunately she had to compromize her view, so that there is a chance for such nations to borrow in the markets at a reasonable price in the foreseeable future.
I am just sick and tired of this nonsense that France and Germany are only bailing themselves out, as their banks were throwing crazy money into Ireland during the boom, when its pretty clear today, that it was mainly US and British institutions that did the reckless lending.

Biggins wrote: »

I would say that you and I is coughing up the vast bulk of it.
More-so next year.

I dont think you and I are coughing up enough then. Ireland is closed out of the markets at the moment and runs a huge deficit. The only other income than tax at present is the "bail out" money.

K-9 · 28-12-2011 12:06AM

Biggins wrote: »

I would say that you and I is coughing up the vast bulk of it.
More-so next year.

Taxes don't even cover the Welfare and Public Service Pay bill, never mind everything else. When is the penny going to drop with people? Do you even think before you go on a rant?

What do you think the bulk of the IMF/EU bailout is for? Why do you think there's a deficit of €13/14 Billion next year?

Would it maybe because what you and everybody else pays isn't enough to keep the country running, never mind bank bailouts?

The vast bulk of it doesn't cut it, hence you and everybody else paying more taxes.

K-9 · 28-12-2011 12:10AM

Robdude wrote: »

People don't realize how global the economy is.

There are lots and lots of companies that come to Ireland because they can pay less in taxes here than in their home country. They aren't Irish, they don't have loyalty to Ireland. They are head-quartered in another country....and they aren't very loyal to that country either....since they setup another corporation and offices here to pay less in taxes.

Now, this is bad for the other countries - but it's good for Ireland. These companies bring a lot of money and a lot of jobs. They still pay a lot in taxes, and everyone they employee pays a lot in taxes.

It *sounds* good to say, 'Yeah - let's pass laws that add taxes!' but what's really going to happen? What special and unique advantages does Ireland offer an international company that it can't find somewhere else?

And how are Irish financial institutes going to be competitive against companies that don't have to deal with these additional taxes?

Let's say you were a hard-working, well educated, talented investment banker. You could work anywhere in the world - and make a LOT of money. Would you work in Ireland where the company that hires you can't pay you nearly as much as a company in the United States or Canada or Australia because the Irish company has to pay transaction taxes the others don't? And, hell, even without this tax, you're still looking at paying almost double the taxes here compared to many other places.

The IFSC's rate of tax was raised previously. Made no difference, indeed it expanded to the extent it is today. Its a scare tactic pure and simple.

What Ireland will do is keep its lax tax rules and regulation, making the tax irrelevant.

Going by the logic on this thread, increasing tax actually made the IFSC bigger!

Fratton Fred · 28-12-2011 12:22AM

So its the banks fault that the Greeks want to retire at 35 on a state pension and never pay any tax?

I'm all for corporations paying a decent amount of tax, rather than pick on the banks, maybe a common corporation tax across europe should be implemented.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-12-2011 01:09AM

No

mikom wrote: »

Not a gift.

Neve said it was.

Biggins wrote: »

Before they turned up the pressure for heads in Dublin to take it!
The public hasn't seen the bail out money as far as I can see - only the banks has.
You know the ones that F&G (France & Germany) want to prop up so that any possible investment of their own, not goes down the tubes!

They don't give a rats arse about us, just their own arse in the end - lets not kids ourselves.
...But still, we are going to pay - with interest!

P.S.
Another 1.25 BILLION is going to the banks in January 25th.
Link

Hey - I never took out a mortgage, amn't a banker and amn't even livign in Ireland any more.

My point is, you elected a government which then accepted the package. By all means, tell them to **** off with it, but if that results in the Irish econmy going tits up (and I'm saying IF) then stop blaming other people.

Biggins · 28-12-2011 01:10AM

donadoni wrote: »

...I am just sick and tired of this nonsense that France and Germany are only bailing themselves out, as their banks were throwing crazy money into Ireland during the boom, when its pretty clear today, that it was mainly US and British institutions that did the reckless lending.

Really? How do you explain Greece then?
F&G are the two biggest investors there by far (to the tune of 50 Billion+) and again made sure their investments didn't fail at the banks by passing on money there either!

The French government’s push to help Greece avoid a default may not come out of pure altruism – but as a way to protect the French banks’ strong interests in the beleaguered country, analysts say.

French banks have a substantial exposure to Greece, either as holders of the country’s sovereign debt, as lenders to private companies, or as receivers of investment banking mandates. French president Nicolas Sarkozy led earlier this week the organisation of a meeting in Rome, where French and German banks, as well as other investors in Greece’s sovereign debt, agreed to roll-over some of their Greek bond holdings, helping Greece avoid a default.

Elisabeth Afseth, a credit analyst at Evolution Securities, told Financial News: “A default would hit the French banking system very badly. It is therefore in their interest to work out a solution -if there wasn’t a solution, the government would have to pick up the pieces and deal with the required shoring up of their banking system.”

French banks have $65bn of overall exposure to Greece, including almost $15bn linked to the public sector. German banks have a $22bn exposure to Greece’s public sector, more than half of their overall $40bn exposure, according to the Bank of International Settlements. The data, the latest available, is as of the end of 2010.

Source: http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2011-06-28/greece-default-french-banks
Other data: http://www.investingreece.gov.gr/newsletter/newsletter.asp?nid=349&id=383&lang=1

donadoni wrote: »

...I dont think you and I are coughing up enough then. Ireland is closed out of the markets at the moment and runs a huge deficit. The only other income than tax at present is the "bail out" money.

...And as I said, by god we are going to pay for it in interest!
IF F&G through the EU was really interested in helping Ireland out, it would be an interest free loan or at least nearly a free interest one.

ScumLord · 28-12-2011 01:16AM

I like the idea of taxing the banks more but I still prefer the public flogging idea, is that still on the table?

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Id agree with it provided its not implemented on a "per transaction" basis which would only lead to it being passed onto customers in new/increased bank charges.

That's where it will end up no matter what, the bankers won't pay this they'll just pass it onto us fools.

Biggins · 28-12-2011 01:21AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Hey - I never took out a mortgage, ain't a banker and ain't even living in Ireland any more.

My point is, you elected a government which then accepted the package. By all means, tell them to **** off with it, but if that results in the Irish econmy going tits up (and I'm saying IF) then stop blaming other people.

Well thats a whole other topic but I would say that the public is not responsible as much as others say.
How?
They elected people that spoke and gave all the representation that they knew what they were doing, supposedly a lot of the answers and had a definite direction to be heading in.

Sadly as we found out later with Fianna Fail, we discovered that they say and represent, like our present two main parties now in power - is completely different to what they espoused as to what they were going to do!

In other words, if you buy a product in a shop that states its does all things you want, buy it and then discover afterwards that the makers lied - who is to blame?
The buyer for putting their trust in what they were sold or the people involved in bringing you the product!

K-9 · 28-12-2011 01:25AM

Biggins wrote: »

Well thats a whole other topic but I would say that the public is not responsible as much as others say.
How?
They elected people that spoke and gave all the representation that they knew what they were doing, supposedly a lot of the answers and had a definite direction to be heading in.

Sadly as we found out later with Fianna Fail, we discovered that they say and represent, like our present two main parties now in power - is completely different to what they espoused as to what they were going to do!

In other words, if you buy a product in a shop that states its does all things you want, but it and then discover afterwards that the makers lied - who is to blame?
The buyer for putting their trust in what they were sold or the people involved in bringing you the product!

And SF will do no better or any of the other alternatives.

Biggins · 28-12-2011 01:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

And SF will do no better or any of the other alternatives.

That too is a worry of mine.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 28-12-2011 01:26AM

No

Biggins wrote: »

Well thats a whole other topic but I would say that the public is not responsible as much as others say.
How?
They elected people that spoke and gave all the representation that they knew what they were doing, supposedly a lot of the answers and had a definite direction to be heading in.

Sadly as we found out later with Fianna Fail, we discovered that they say and represent, like our present two main parties now in power - is completely different to what they espoused as to what they were going to do!

In other words, if you buy a product in a shop that states its does all things you want, but it and then discover afterwards that the makers lied - who is to blame?
The buyer for putting their trust in what they were sold or the people involved in bringing you the product!

Oh come on! I could have told you in the early 90s that the current manifesto was never sustainable! And yet FF were electe twice after that. Some people are still moaning that they weren't given another term to try and fix things.

But then there is the secodn point: do you or do you not need the bailout? If so, you can harldy tellthem to **** off. If not, then what's your five year plan? Realistically speaking?

Stinicker · 28-12-2011 01:31AM

No

Fishooks12 wrote: »

I'm no economist but would taxing the banks lead to these institutions being even more reluctant to provide financing and loans, thus stifling economic growth even more?

The entire financial system should be fully nationalised and controlled by the state or EU, it should then be used for creating new wealth, new jobs and used for the greater social good. No private speculators should be allowed to cream off biillions by blatantly manipulating important market prices to line to line their own pockets. There has in essence been trillions of dollars of wealth stolen from society by these lowlife parasites. The state should control it and you will find in India where most of the banks are state owned they are rapidly growing and lifting millions out of dire poverty and into a better situation.

Banks, Vulture Capitalists and speculators are what have destroyed western economies for the last half decade, added in corrupt politicians and light touch regulation and you have the biggest mass theft in history. This entire crisis has not just happened by accident and it was actually created by the super wealthy and power mad for their own private enrichment.

Biggins · 28-12-2011 01:35AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Oh come on! I could have told you in the early 90s that the current manifesto was never sustainable! And yet FF were elected twice after that. Some people are still moaning that they weren't given another term to try and fix things.

Well its easy to see these things n hindsight but I do agree (if you agree too) that they were foolishly elected yet again when they shouldn't have been.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

...you can harldy tell them to **** off. If not, then what's your five year plan? Realistically speaking?

I wouldn't tell the EU to fcuk off - I would however tell two bullies to go shove their methods of persuasion up their arse and to lay off trying to get our corporate rate changed by any method possible!

As for any five year plan, such things are being worked upon not just by myself but by a new political organisation I have become a member of.
The Irish Democratic party.
(http://www.irishdemocraticparty.ie/)
You can be sure you will be hearing from them soon as regards any plans.

K-9 · 28-12-2011 01:36AM

Biggins wrote: »

That too is a worry of mine.

Because it will be a coalition so those who believe the party PR get disappointed.

When elections come up, the best guide is listening to how much backtracking they do. Its why none of this comes as a surprise to me.

Germany's "Robin Hood" €57billion tax on EU banks: do you agree with it?

Comments