[JPKC]

(Original post by Jarred)
It's still an attack on a (perhaps unfortunately) important industry for this country. £50bn is a lot of money, it's more than corporation tax and stamp duty combined produce. To then go and levy that on one industry is going to hurt it a lot. I don't like bankers but to go and launch massive attacks on them is futile and will hurt us all a lot more than if you just let them be.

Okay, it seems that none of the FTT's opponents actually know where the tax's revenue would come from. If it was collected from one industry then obviously it would be quite impractical, I completely agree. However, it's complete nonsense to pretend the financial services sector exists in isolation to the rest of the economy (on both a global and national scale). Financial institutions that operate the UK's capital market are working with their customers money. £3,833bn was traded in the last year (up to June) on the London Stock Exchange. This wealth comes from all over the planet. Everywhere. And it wouldn't all go away if you took 0.01% out of it to solve all the country's problems with. This is not a tax on bankers, and its not one that would have any tangible effect on any particular industry or group of people.

So why's it not in the Budget?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
Okay, it seems that none of the FTT's opponents actually know where the tax's revenue would come from. If it was collected from one industry then obviously it would be quite impractical, I completely agree. However, it's complete nonsense to pretend the financial services sector exists in isolation to the rest of the economy (on both a global and national scale). Financial institutions that operate the UK's capital market are working with their customers money. £3,833bn was traded in the last year (up to June) on the London Stock Exchange. This wealth comes from all over the planet. Everywhere. And it wouldn't all go away if you took 0.01% out of it to solve all the country's problems with. This is not a tax on bankers, and its not one that would have any tangible effect on any particular industry or group of people.

So why's it not in the Budget?

Because £3833bn of trading is not the same as £3833bn of wealth creation. This is why the 0.01% is misleading, because the wealth created is not the same as the transaction cost.

[JPKC]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Because £3833bn of trading is not the same as £3833bn of wealth creation. This is why the 0.01% is misleading, because the wealth created is not the same as the transaction cost.

So? Taxes don't need to tax wealth creation. The base for the GRT is not wealth creation, nor is the base for income tax. And it's not misleading in the slightest. It's never been claimed that it's a tax on the profit made in the transaction. The FTT gives traders an imperative to make more money on each trade and to not employ the same reckless mechanisms that have recently seen banks like JPMorgan lose £20bn on bad trades.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
So? Taxes don't need to tax wealth creation. The base for the GRT is not wealth creation, nor is the base for income tax. And it's not misleading in the slightest. It's never been claimed that it's a tax on the profit made in the transaction. The FTT gives traders an imperative to make more money on each trade and to not employ the same reckless mechanisms that have recently seen banks like JPMorgan lose £20bn on bad trades.

Because it means it's a misleading rate. It's not a tax of 0.01% on wealth, but on amount sent through. To argue that taxing 0.01% of the £3,833bn of wealth being sent through won't destroy virtually any of it is a false claim because you're not taxing the creation process. You're not just simply taking 0.01% of it, you're destroying the very process by which a fair amount of this is created, and that's why you'd destroy a whole load more, because it's a tax on a process of wealth creation - and you'd destroy a fair amount of the wealth created by taxing the total even at such a small rate.

As for high-frequency trading being worse than others, it's completely unfounded and the reasons that JPMorgan lost £20bn wasn't because it was high frequency, but because it was bad trading. It was things blowing up because of an under-appreciation of randomness which is in the human psyche - not because of the frequency of trading. See Nicholas Nassim Taleb.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by JPKC)
The FTT gives traders an imperative to make more money on each trade and to not employ the same reckless mechanisms that have recently seen banks like JPMorgan lose £20bn on bad trades.

No it does not and JP Morgan were (even by their own admission) making terrible calls and then making more terrible calls when it came to rescuing themselves... it did not work and the whole got deeper.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by JPKC)
Okay, it seems that none of the FTT's opponents actually know where the tax's revenue would come from. If it was collected from one industry then obviously it would be quite impractical, I completely agree. However, it's complete nonsense to pretend the financial services sector exists in isolation to the rest of the economy (on both a global and national scale). Financial institutions that operate the UK's capital market are working with their customers money. £3,833bn was traded in the last year (up to June) on the London Stock Exchange. This wealth comes from all over the planet. Everywhere. And it wouldn't all go away if you took 0.01% out of it to solve all the country's problems with. This is not a tax on bankers, and its not one that would have any tangible effect on any particular industry or group of people.

So why's it not in the Budget?

None? Some of us actually study Economics and watch Bloomberg financial news every day.

The FTT is not in the budget because it is yet another tax which is unneeded, our goal is a smaller state with lower taxes, not a socialistic 1000 tiny taxes economy dependent on massive public spending.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Rakas21)
None? Some of us actually watch Bloomberg financial news every day.

Bloomberg BFM TV and CNBC is where its at

[Rakas21]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Bloomberg BFM TV and CNBC is where its at

If CNBC is Sky Channel 505 then yes, that is great too (i forget if 505 is CNN or CNBC). Euronews is quite good for general news not censored by the BBC state propaganda channel.

[Jarred]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Oh my God! What is wrong with you?

Haha I'm not completely sure, it is a great shame of mine

I do usually stick to the Torygraph and Sky News though, but will read the Indie and watch the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation from time to time to get a different stance.

[Jarred]

(Original post by JPKC)
Okay, it seems that none of the FTT's opponents actually know where the tax's revenue would come from. If it was collected from one industry then obviously it would be quite impractical, I completely agree. However, it's complete nonsense to pretend the financial services sector exists in isolation to the rest of the economy (on both a global and national scale). Financial institutions that operate the UK's capital market are working with their customers money. £3,833bn was traded in the last year (up to June) on the London Stock Exchange. This wealth comes from all over the planet. Everywhere. And it wouldn't all go away if you took 0.01% out of it to solve all the country's problems with. This is not a tax on bankers, and its not one that would have any tangible effect on any particular industry or group of people.

So why's it not in the Budget?

I think J&T and Rakas have answered this one pretty well for you.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Rakas21)
If CNBC is Sky Channel 505 then yes, that is great too (i forget if 505 is CNN or CNBC). Euronews is quite good for general news not censored by the BBC state propaganda channel.

No idea, don't have Sky.

(Original post by Jarred)
Haha I'm not completely sure, it is a great shame of mine

I do usually stick to the Torygraph and Sky News though, but will read the Indie and watch the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation from time to time to get a different stance.

Different stances are for those that are too weak to have their own opinions read back to them

[Jarred]

(Original post by tehFrance)
No idea, don't have Sky.

Different stances are for those that are too weak to have their own opinions read back to them

Yeah CNBC is on 505.

I guess you could say that, but it's often quite handy in an argument when a leftist loony tries to refute a claim you've made by saying you read it in a right wing paper and then you say "Actually, I saw it on the Beeb" or "I read it in the Indie actually" and that usually shatters their little act of thinking they're better than you.

[internetguru]

I agree with the elimination of income tax and VAT although I am still unsure about this whole ground tax thing. The estimates for the ground rent tax are probably incorrect as well, you would need to hire people to estimate ground values of all properties n the UK on an annual basis. Then you would have to factor in the reduction in income due to the lower land prices which would come as a result of ground tax increases.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by internetguru)
I agree with the elimination of income tax and VAT although I am still unsure about this whole ground tax thing. The estimates for the ground rent tax are probably incorrect as well, you would need to hire people to estimate ground values of all properties n the UK on an annual basis. Then you would have to factor in the reduction in income due to the lower land prices which would come as a result of ground tax increases.

Nahuh. Because the tax is levied on rental, not capital values. Indeed what has happened in the places it's been levied is that the base has shot up, because of the positive economic effects from replacing other taxes with this one leading to big improvements in land values, as people use the land more efficiently, and the place grows quicker. This has happened where the taxes have been only levied in a small locality and where they have been levied nationally.

As for the rest - no ****, of course we would with an army of civil servants and it most probably is a bit out - but I've explained the methodology I used elsewhere and I think it's a reasonable estimate from the evidence available - and probably about the best we're gonna do. If you want to go ahead and produce a fine bit of research on it then I'd sure welcome that - but considering you haven't yet understood how the tax works, then I doubt it's forthcoming.

[internetguru]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Nahuh. Because the tax is levied on rental, not capital values. Indeed what has happened in the places it's been levied is that the base has shot up, because of the positive economic effects from replacing other taxes with this one leading to big improvements in land values, as people use the land more efficiently, and the place grows quicker. This has happened where the taxes have been only levied in a small locality and where they have been levied nationally.

As for the rest - no ****, of course we would with an army of civil servants and it most probably is a bit out - but I've explained the methodology I used elsewhere and I think it's a reasonable estimate from the evidence available - and probably about the best we're gonna do. If you want to go ahead and produce a fine bit of research on it then I'd sure welcome that - but considering you haven't yet understood how the tax works, then I doubt it's forthcoming.

Would ground tax mean that people with bigger gardens pay more tax? My current house has a garden that is 3x the size of the house but in the past I have lived in a bigger house but with an absolute tiny garden (it didn't even have grass) would I be paying 3x as much tax in the current house?

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by internetguru)
Would ground tax mean that people with bigger gardens pay more tax? My current house has a garden that is 3x the size of the house but in the past I have lived in a bigger house but with an absolute tiny garden (it didn't even have grass) would I be paying 3x as much tax in the current house?

It entirely depends on the location. In theory, yes. Improvements (ie. houses) aren't taxed. Merely the land underlying it.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Jarred)
Yeah CNBC is on 505.

I guess you could say that, but it's often quite handy in an argument when a leftist loony tries to refute a claim you've made by saying you read it in a right wing paper and then you say "Actually, I saw it on the Beeb" or "I read it in the Indie actually" and that usually shatters their little act of thinking they're better than you.

Of course, the Indy offers a range of opinion from left to right and the BBC is more centre than left so quite how you could get away with this degree of tosh is beyond me.