We don’t need big banks to run our county for the rich, we need small local banks to help support our communities and small businesses.

I am sure banks will find away out of paying even the smallest tax, while we get penalised to pay 17.5%, there really is no justice for normal human kind who care about the world and our families.

You rich people have so much money you just can’t bare to let it go!
Why don’t you stop being so self obsessed and think about the rest of the population struggling to make a living, or are you so immoral that you don’t give a shit???

So, how about you learn some rigor yourself by starting out with some basic research?

A quick google search of the reference given by the group for their $400bn revenue figure turns up this source amongst others:

http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/servlet/wwa.upload.DownloadServlet/bdoc/PRIVATE46955/WP_2009_344$.PDF

A 20 page working paper on the proposal by what appears to be a financial economist, one of several he has written on this very tax.

And now some background explanation. NGOs rely on academics in consultancies and universities for much of their research. This means that just because they don’t have 10 in-house economists doesn’t mean they are not utilising significant academic work.

Finally here’s a task. Why don’t you prove that you are actually interested in thinking about these issues in a sophisticated way? Have an honest look at the background academic arguments. Then we can see if you can do any rigorous thinking yourself.

I dare you all!

Also speaking as a ex-biochemist in the 4.5 billion year history of earth nature has only started afresh once. We aren’t better designed, we are simply the best of the worst

They were getting ink yesterday for suggesting a 21-hour (3-day) working week – “who wouldn’t want a four-day weekend?” they say.

Given that they’re a radical left organisation, I’d say their economics are just as suspect as the others on the list…

Everything seems to have a lifespan that is determined by the ability to copy successful concepts faithfully, and by keeping out pests — nature almost always starts over from scratch with a new organism that is better designed instead of faffing around with a moribund failure.

I think that this is the case with our systems, they are at the end of their natural life and repairing the infestation of incorrigible fools and their demented ideas is taking way more energy than rebuilding will do.

So, bring on the Tobin tax and let’s enjoy the ultimate golden goose roast… because an end with a fright is better than a fright without and end.

“The core (of the UK Climate Act} is contract and converge. We cannot imagine a global deal which is both doable and fair which doesn’t end up by mid-century with roughly equal rights per capita to emit and that is clearly said in the report.

From blue chips to the green dream Nick Mathiason The Observer, Sunday 3 February 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/03/climatechange

Adair Turner, former CBI boss and now Britain’s climate change tsar, tells Nick Mathiason why carbon reduction must begin at home.

With a CV that includes oil giant BP, a long spell at management consultancy McKinsey, and, at 39, boss of the CBI, Turner will now tell the government whether it is on track to meet tough carbon dioxide reduction commitments and what it must do if, as likely, it falls short.

His first priority is to establish whether the government’s 60 per cent cut by 2050 is enough. He will also give clear indications as to what the country must achieve by 2020.

In a new collection of essays called Do Good Lives Have to Cost the Earth, Turner argues that ‘growth has to be dethroned’ if the planet is to survive surging population growth and global warming.

He has spoken in favour of global taxation, (the “Tobin Tax”). http://tiny.cc/tziLX

The idea of taxing financial transactions is ascribed to Yale professor and Nobel laureate James Tobin. Lord Turner’s suggestion and the Tobin tax are, in fact, distinct. Tobin was satisfied to tax foreign exchange transactions only. Lord Turner appears to advocate for a much broader tax on global financial transactions, which have supposedly become inflated and “useless” from a socio-economic point of view.

What they have in common, however, is that they would be the first truly “global taxes.” This would require cooperation at a supra-national level, with all its political intricacies.

Tories want to put Lord Turner in charge of curbs at the Bank
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6870298.ece

From the same page, they reckon they’ll raise $400 billion globally, then spend $200 billion domestically (to pay for bailing out the banks) and the rest on international development and ‘adapting to climate change’.

Where the hell did they come from?

where did you get the $788 billion figure from? I can’t find it on the website. Heck, Google can’t find it on the website, and there’s no cached version.

Obviously I’m assuming VAT registered.

“… in which case, you could also claim back the VAT that was charged when you bought the item, so it would only cost you £85.11.”

Which is why I said purchase price £100 ignoring input VAT, assume £100 net of VAT.

“So, when you sell it for £110, you’d get to keep £93.61, a profit of £8.50.”

No, you make a loss of £6.38 as I explained.

“If you’re not VAT-registered, you couldn’t claim back the VAT on the purchase, but you also wouldn’t have to hand it over when you sell the item.”

In which case you make a loss of £7.50, but there’s no point trying to justify the non-logic of VAT by referring to exempt traders.

Compare this with a VAT-free world, it’s nice and simple, if you can buy for £100 and sell for £110 you are in profit.

Go and look up Ricardo’s Law Of Comparative Advantage. Most exchanges make people better off, however narrow the margin. Then ask what happens if all exchanges that generate a surplus to the parties of less than 17.5% are effectively made illegal.

Still mad, though.