Canada says no to "Robin Hood" tax

[Topaz]

The countries of the G20 want countries to tax banks and other financial institutions but Canada is saying no. This money would be used in times of hard time like a recession, instead of using tax payers. Thoughts? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/canada-says-no-to-robin-hood-tax-91683444.html

[M.Dancer]

Thoughts? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/canada-says-no-to-robin-hood-tax-91683444.html

Yes. Your post doesn't make sense.

[Shady]

This so-called "Robin Hood" tax will just be passed on to consumers through higher bank fees. The IMF should stay out of our economic policy. Also, raising taxes during a recession isn't a very good idea. Don't they have better things to do? Like ruining the economies in Africa?

[Topaz]

This article may explain it better but if the fund is used to help financial institutions in trouble then why not? Its better then using tax payers money. Of course, the banks would charge us more. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100423/G20_talks_100423/20100423?hub=CanadaAMV2

[geoffrey]

Canadian banks didn't need any government assistance. The taxpayers didn't put up any money.

So why tax them for doing the RIGHT thing? Canadian banks had appropriate risk measures and capitalization in place. Let them continue on. They are a reason for Canada current economic and fiscal strength. Taxing them now would be highly immoral and contrary to national interest.

Foreign dollars have been pouring into Canada because of our strong banks.

[Bonam]

This article may explain it better but if the fund is used to help financial institutions in trouble then why not? Its better then using tax payers money.

Ugh how can you even write something like this. It is a TAX. Which money do you think it is other than "tax payers money". Seriously dude.

Besides that obvious issue, the idea of raising taxes on an international rather than national scale does not sit well with me. This cuts into the sovereignty of individual nations, and with the way the UN is structured, is bound to end up as yet another pointless wealth redistribution scheme to transfer money from successful nations to corrupt hellholes.

[Bonam]

Victory:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/05/bank-tax-proposal.html?ref=rss

[segnosaur]

This article may explain it better but if the fund is used to help financial institutions in trouble then why not? Its better then using tax payers money. Of course, the banks would charge us more. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100423/G20_talks_100423/20100423?hub=CanadaAMV2

Well, the article you linked to explains why it might not be a good idea to have such a 'fund'...

Flaherty has said the tax would create an incentive for banks to behave recklessly, because they'd feel assured their governments would bail them out again if needed.

He added that by removing capital from a financial institution to an external fund it would cut into the bank's bottom line and weaken its ability to absorb losses.

[segnosaur]

The countries of the G20 want countries to tax banks and other financial institutions but Canada is saying no. This money would be used in times of hard time like a recession, instead of using tax payers. Thoughts? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/canada-says-no-to-robin-hood-tax-91683444.html

For some reason, that particular article seems to be combining 2 different tax 'proposals'...

Proposal 1 (put forward by various governments) is that a tax be applied to banks, with the money put into a fund to handle future bail-outs. (Almost a form of insurance).

Proposal 2 (put forward by various aid groups) is that they apply a tax to banks to fund various anti-poverty programs. (This has nothing to do with the bank bailouts.)

These 2 proposals have nothing to do with each other (although the article does seem to blur the distinction a little.)

[Non_Partisan]

Wow I really think the left has dropped the ball on this one. They should be looking at installing an international Glass-Steagall Act for a globalized economy, not looking for another tax grab.

I understand the argument against the moral hazard, "the banks know they are too big to fail so widespread abuse and speculation is going to happen again, lets be prepared." but its the wimps way out, creating a moral hazard by saying thumbs up do it again. Get tough, get some balls and pass legislation to prevent another bubble and bust!!!

[geoffrey]

Get tough, get some balls and pass legislation to prevent another bubble and bust!!!

It's easier for Obama and co to just tax. That way they don't have to face the reality that broken housing programs (those requiring banks by law to issue mortgages doomed to fail) and other social issues are the real problem behind the collapses.

The reality... most Westerners live beyond their means. And the government requires banks to provide for them the rope to hang themselves with. The problem is everyone goes down with that.

Again, just really unpopular to tell people they can't have houses and cars and live poor. But that's what needs to happen. Too many people have houses and other nice things. That must change.