The CSM in Green tights: The Robin Hood tax, and why we support it.

The Robin Hood tax is a small tax on banks, hedge funds and other fanatical services, which will take, on average, 0.05% of all banking transactions. This is less than 50p for every £1000 that they spend. Despite taking such a minor percentage from the banks, the RHT is estimated to rise over US$400billion. The people running the Robin Hood Tax campaign have very specific ideas of where they want the money to go. Their main aims include putting billions into climate change research and helping solve many issues surrounding poverty.

Many Christian groups, charities and leaders have spoken out in support of this tax. Paul Cook, advocacy director of Tearfund, said, “This tax is an ethical way of releasing a very small percentage from the largest transactions – but will make a huge difference to some of the world’s poorest communities.” And many more influential figures have spoken out in support of the bank levee including Tim stone, the Public affairs officer for the Salvation Army who called the campaign a "wonderful opportunity to assist those working with the most vulnerable in UK society.” The RHT doses have many Christian values. The bible teaches that we must “not deny justice to your poor people,” (Ex. 23:6) Throughout his teachings, Jesus told us that helping the poor is one of the most important things you can do, in the book of Mathew Jesus is reported to have said ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me,’ meaning that all people are born equal. The Labour party and the CSM both believe that we need to help the people who need help, that we need to help, ‘the least of the people.’ And if that means a banker can’t afford his 16^th car, well, I think I can live with that.

But what dose this have to do with TRHT? Surely it’s just a tax, and it the money would only go to the corrupt politicians. This is not the case. The RHT want, in the UK, to protect frontline services and public sector jobs with half the money spent domestically on these issues. However the other half will be spent internationally, totalling $200Bn with universal input, with $100bn going towards international development and another $100bn going towards going towards helping vulnerable third world countries deal with climate change, which the UN predicts will cost over $500bn annually. Domestically, poverty-fighting charities have suggested that ‘child poverty, reforming the welfare system, investing in affordable housing and making homes more energy-efficient’ should be highlighted as key aims.

 

As with every good idea, there are many people who disagree with it. After all, the story of Robin Hood wouldn’t quite be the same without the Sheriff of Nottingham there to put dampen on our hero’s spirit. However it looks like Robin will need more than a bow and arrow to sort out the global economy. Over the pas few years there has been a mighty storm hanging over the economy, which affected everyone’s lives, and caused a necessity for major frontline services to be cut. Even so, the Tories once again showed their true colours, in a budget as regressive and harsh as Margaret Thatcher’s, despite the 'input' from the Liberal Democrats. Surely, in a time where major cuts in public services need to be made, the Government should institute a fair, and comparatively minor tax on the perpetrators of the economic crash, would that not be the logical and fair thing to do? So here’s the question on many people’s lips after the Tory budget: where was Robin, and why was he not included?

 

Did they worry that it could damage our competitiveness? Did they believe it would damage the banks? Perhaps they worry, as many do, that the tax would be impossible to set up, as it would not be effective if it was not done universally, and many people fear that not every G20 country would be willing to implement the tax; despite the fact that many, if not most, of the G20 countries have similar taxes already, such as stamp duty on shares in the UK, and it is very likely that if Britain, America and other leading economic countries like Germany, implement the tax, many more countries would follow. Perhaps they think that the costs would be passed on to the consumers as it will be an added fixed cost on many services using average people's money, such as buying and selling savings and investment products, this would mean that at least part of the tax would be passed onto consumers, which, some economist speculate, would be a disaster for our banks competitive. People who use this argument seem to think that this s a tax on profit or income, but it is a tax on economic activity, general transactions, whilst some of the tax will be passed on to the consumer, it will only be a fraction of the whole tax, (and a fraction of 0.05% doesn’t seem like a lot). This would not affect the banks competitiveness because it would be a universal tax, and no one group of banks would suffer. Over all, the robin hood tax could be good for banks; if I was the CEO of a bank, and was paying the robin hood tax, I think it could open up a world of advertising, boasting of all the good their ‘charitable (tax) donation’ has done in the areas of great public interest and support. But unfortunately, I don’t run all the banks, and I don’t think they would see fairer world for the poorer people in society as a great victory.