B1052 – Banking (No. 2) Bill 2016

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    B1052 – Banking (No. 2) Bill 2016, TSR Labour Party

    Banking (No. 2) Bill 2016
    An Act to remove the banking corporation tax surcharge

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1: Repeals

    Finance (No. 2) Act 2015, section 17 and Schedule 3 are repealed.

    2: Commencement, Short Title and Extent

    (1) This Bill may be cited as the Banking (No. 2) Act 2016;
    (2) This Bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
    (3) Shall come into force on the 1st April 2017.


    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The purpose of the banking corporation tax surcharge was to ensure that banks pay to cover the externality imposed on the public exchequer through risky strategies. In the wake of the passage of the Banking Act 2016 (V1019), that externality is significantly smaller, if not completely gone. It therefore does not make sense any longer to discriminate against the banking sector, and it is important to ensure our finance sectors are as competitive as possible.

    Original Act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/33/contents
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like laziness on the part of the first bill, or a way to artificially increase output.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Sounds like laziness on the part of the first bill.
    I wasn't sure how much I would need to amend to make it pass, so didn't want to raise this expectation in early readings that it would form part of the Bill.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I wasn't sure how much I would need to amend to make it pass, so didn't want to raise this expectation in early readings that it would form part of the Bill.
    Artificial output increase then.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Artificial output increase then.
    How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

    I mean, I understand you're a cynical old ****, but what else?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with Jammy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, knowing I had a bill pushed back for this bill to massage the Labour Party's output figures makes me mad.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So you people - who, I should note, are the same people who often complain about too many different provisions in one Bill, and at the very least must understand that people tend to vote against a Bill if there are things they disagree with - are against this being done this way, I assume because it's the Labour Party? This is especially unusual seeing as policy-wise, this Bill seems like one you all should support. I despair, you're all ridiculous.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

    I mean, I understand you're a cynical old ****, but what else?
    Is it really so hard to sit down and think about something when you have little else to do with your time, instead at least pretend you didn't do that and get two items instead of one.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Is it really so hard to sit down and think about something when you have little else to do with your time, instead at least pretend you didn't do that and get two items instead of one.
    So you would introduce a measure which is likely to reduce support for an already polarising Bill because...

    Edit: also, I'm going to note, this Bill wasn't discussed in the Labour sub in the first Banking Bill's thread. It was my intention, not something discussed with the party.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So you would introduce a measure which is likely to reduce support for an already polarising Bill because...

    Edit: also, I'm going to note, this Bill wasn't discussed in the Labour sub in the first Banking Bill's thread. It was my intention, not something discussed with the party.
    Because not to do so makes the bill incomplete and would probably have made passage easier, not harder.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Our Shadow Chancellor approached the party with this bill idea, saying it may be controversial as it is a tax break on the banking industry, for the reasons mentioned in the notes. He then proceeded to explain why this was a good bill, what it would achieve, and why it he believed it should be Labour policy. We agreed with our Shadow Chancellor. This isn't something we typed out in five seconds after thinking "how can we mess with Nigel now he's back, and make our amount of output look good"
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because not to do so makes the bill incomplete and would probably have made passage easier, not harder.
    lol no

    First, you really think the Bill gets socialist votes if it reduces the tax levied on banks?

    Second, so many in this House (incorrectly IMO) vote against a Bill if it isn't perfect for them, rather than merely being worse than the status quo.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye tbh. It's a short bill and easily could have gone into another bill, but that should be irrelevant to how people intend to vote on this bill.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Wait are labour trying to cut tax on banks and the Tories objecting???
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Wait are labour trying to cut tax on banks and the Tories objecting???
    lmaoooo
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    aye, the bill makes sense.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, makes sense to me
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, knowing I had a bill pushed back for this bill to massage the Labour Party's output figures makes me mad.
    We don't need to 'massage' anything seeing as we're already winning in both quality and quantity. This is just tying up loose ends. Go back to stroking your ego.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Wait are labour trying to cut tax on banks and the Tories objecting???
    Because it should have been in the original bill, or have you forgotten how to read?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Updated: September 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you ever go to a non Russell Group uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.