by frog
The European Parliament is backing a tax on financial transactions — a ‘Robin Hood’ style Tobin tax that could raise as much as $200 billion euros a year from banks for addressing world poverty. The move was one of several to ensure banks take their share of responsibility for the global financial crisis.
The decision now pressures the European Commission to draft legislation to enact it.
The Green Party supports a Tobin tax on financial transactions. The tax works to put grit in the wheels of international finance, discouraging the kind of financial speculation that led to the global financial crisis. And with the money it raises, we could feed the world.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Featured | THE ISSUES by frog on Thu, March 10th, 2011
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I reckon this should be an issue the Greens should champion going into the election. We could easily get media exposure by calling at an ‘earthquake tax’.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
It might help to fight money laundering schemes, or to at least get some money back from criminals who do launder their money.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
I wrote a research paper on such taxes some years ago.
The unexpected outcomes are disastrous as the Australian states discovered.
Why would Fonterra bring its earnings home to NZ if they incurred a Tobin tax here while by diverting them elsewhere they could avoid it?
Money laundering is hugely boosted.
But why punish our financial sector when they did not cause the problem?
Like or Dislike:
9 
7 (+2)
Owen,
I think the problem with the idea of a transaction tax is that the proponents are seeing it as a tax revenue gathering device OVER and ABOVE the existing tax gathering protocols.
IE. How can I make up the shortfall in state expenditure, oh look here is another taxation method.
That is a totally wrong way to look at it and I agree with you it will lead to more Cook Island registered companies.
What we should be looking at is a total tax reform package for business that encourages business away from commodity sales and into added value sales.
EG. Tax a log and wood chip export business higher than a furniture or MDF panel export business. Tax ironsand exports higher than finished steel exports.
Dont know how practical it would be to implement but it will encourage foreign investment into business here.
Just taxation to increase the state income is wrong, the state needs to cut expenditure to suit the income, not increase income to suit expenditure. For doing that is totally unsustainable in a flat economic situation NZL finds itself in.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
mcshane said:..
“..But why punish our financial sector when they did not cause the problem?..”
that’s a real knee-slapper..!..eh..?
and nobody is being ‘punished’..
..it is a small tax..on many..who can afford it…
..and it will relatively painlessly raise much-needed revenue..
..so..mcshane is a tobin-tax denialist..as well..eh..?
btw..mcshane…
it appears there is an arc back through the climate-change deniers…
…to the earlier tobacco-apologists…
..were you one of those arguing against tighter/any restrictions on tobacco sale/use..?
..probably on ‘personal-freedom’-grounds…eh..?
..were you also one of those..?…mcshane…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
8 (-8)
Owen and Gerrit are just reacting in the knee-jerk way that right-wingers do to any talk of increased tax.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
In the Toddy school of predictability that someone would bring up left versus right.
You were on the right track in a discussion with the first paragraph, but the last WTFITAA?
Lets see the green policy on Tobin tax (in fact taxation in general) such as how much would the Greens add to a financial trasaction tax.
Would this be incurred for every transaction locally as well? ATM withdrawals or deposits, receiving your pay via electronic means take another 0.05% tax? etc.
When the Greens get more details to us lets discuss right versus left at that time and add into the mix curtailing state expenditure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My original paper is not on the web. I wrote it in pre internet times.
However the following Australian paper drew on my work.
Whether the Green Party decides to promote the FTT of BAD tax is the parties business. But I suggest you read this paper before rushing to judgement.
http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/blt/jat/1998-issue2-sawyer.pdf
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sorry Gerrit, I didn’t read your original comment closely enough. It is more nuanced than I first thought.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
This thread is hilarious, as expected.
Firstly, Frog suggests that with the tax “we could feed the world.
I’m not sure who this “we” is, but I am sure Frog could enlighten us.
Second, Phil suggests the companies can “afford” it. How does he know that? A cost imposed in one place means a cost recovered elsewhere. If Fonterra was charged a FTT it would simply put up its prices.
Which, of course, would make it more difficult for Frog to “feed the world”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6 (-5)
Perhaps a better way of feeding the world would be to push the Europeans to get rid of their frankly idiotic subsidies on agricultural products – that would not only help the Third World compete, but it would probably improve efficiency as well
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
so..gooner..just makes beneficiaries lives more miserable..eh..?
..that’ll solve all our economic woes…eh..?
..and don’t dare touch any aspect of the incomes of the elites..eh..?
the rich aren’t paying their fair share…gooner..
that is the problem…
..and to show you just how much a non-cowed government has room to move…
..(especially in times of ‘crisis’..eh..?..)
..the highest personal tax rate in america…under eisenhower…
…was 91%…
..so..tobin taxes/higher tax cuts for the top earners..
…and a capital gains tax on all but family home…
..will go some way to solving our economic-problems..
..y’know..!..there just isn’t really that much more left to squeeze out of the poor…
..eh..?
..it’s your turn…
..the pendulum has been swinging your way for thirty odd years..(and i mean ‘odd’..)
..the one thing that is blindingly obvious..
..is it hasn’t worked…eh..?
..your ‘way’…is a crap/dead-end ‘way’…
..with perhaps the clearest indication being the one half of one percent support for your party…
..eh..?
..almost small enough to be called a tobin-poll..
..eh..?
steel yrslf..there gooner…
..that pendulum is about to start swinging back the other way..
..and this transaction tax is just part of that return-swing…
..learn to love it..!
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
(ahem..!..typo-alert..)
make that ‘higher taxes for the top-earners’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
One of the criticisms of the Australian BAD taxes were that they were so highly regressive.
If a low income person has to make 20 financial transactions to pay off their 20,000 debt then they paid much more than the person who could pay it off in one lump and have only one transaction.
This is easy to get right but so many of the faults with Tobin style taxes where they have been tried are in the detail – and are often the result of attempts to address a wrong elsewhere.
So if a party it going to promote such a tax it needs to have thought it through to this level of detail.
A whole lot of new issues have arisen since then. Is an ATM transaction a taxable financial transaction?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
I would guess that a small financial transaction tax would not raise anything like the amount of money raised by GST and would not “feed the world”. Surely its purpose is to discourage financial transactions that don’t add value to the economy, such as those made by speculators. Assuming that it was a proportional tax, it wouldn’t matter if a financial transaction was made in one large installment or multiple small installments, such as a mortgage or hire purchase.
(It might help fund the Serious Fraud Office.)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dr McShane is clutching at straws…. FTT can be based on % of the transaction, thus someone with a $2M transaction pays a quite bit than one only paying $20K… or $20! As for Fortuna avoiding NZ trasnactions… Are not its shareholders touching the teets of cows daily in a place called NZ. Do they not want to buy petrol at the nearest service station, food at the local Farmers market…..
When last raised as a policy for an election (the Alliance c.1993 from memory) the ACT boys ridiculed it with little substance. Given their desire to dig holes (in the hope of finding gold methinks) it will be fun to advocate taxing the million dollar transactions and leave the $20 ones alone….(joking of course…. the admin costs would not permit it).
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Graham,
So when will the final Greens FTT be explained?
How much and on what services?
Lets us see some details so we can debate this properly.
To say that people are clutching at straws is quite correct, but totally from a perspective that the Greens have provided no details.
Will it be neutral?
How will it be become a neutral tax, by cancelling what other taxation incurred at the moment?
How much will it collect?
Lets see some detail for all we have is “clutching at straws” by the Greens as well as Owen McShane!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
This is one of the many flaws in the corrupt system which runs the world called “globalisation”. This failed system need to be annihilated.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
phil toms
Absolutely should the failed system be annihilated. That is not a right versus left argument at all. Both sides want to change this failed system.
Care to suggest what you would have as a workable and most importantly sustainable system to replace it with?
Because that is the question that needs answering.
Just screaming, we need FTT and CGT that will sort out the problem of inequality, is not an answer.
When it has nowhere to be shown to work UNLESS the Greens back it up with sound research and budgetted figures making it an election issue to show how it would work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Absolutely it is a left right issue. This is so unbelievably simple. You just spend as a nation less than you earn as a nation.
Of course under a global free trade system it is illegal to restrict one’s imports and direct one’s population to use local companies to stop capital flow out of the country in the form of profits to foreign operators.
The chinese currency is artificially low so even under your so called “free trade” system it is corrupt. Also they have no labour standards, pollution standards, their people are virtual slaves, exploited by a global elite who are accumulating the entire wealth of the planet.
As I said, Globalisation is destroying us. That is what it is designed to do.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Rubbish, the people are destroying themselves through buying into globalisation clap trap, including the globalisation of climate change and the taxation/trading in carbon. Another Al Gore millstone to be endured.
Simply throw of the globalisation shackles and let the free market in New Zealand decide. Very simple but isolationist.
Living within ones means for New Zealand would be the destruction of the welfare system here.
Simply not enough funds available UNLESS
we restructure the whole economy in one foul swoop to be independent from the rest of the world and internally fully sustainable.
Can be done but there is no stomach for it presently so I dont think the Greens will have that vision in mind for this election.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
We know crap is good fertilizer and we are an agrarian society, but this is taking things a bit far.
Given the paper Owen points to, the point that Gerrit is making about getting the details figured out and published has to be taken seriously. Right now Owen is defining the tax being proposed, even though it is actually a tax being proposed in the EU, not here. We are just liking the idea at the moment
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Fell, as in deadly Gerrit, or foul as in ball ? The metaphor is unclear
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Living within ones means for New Zealand would be the destruction of the welfare system here.”
This is the mechanism of globalisation. You give people money they spend it on imported fuel, imported clothes, and particularly stupidly, imported fruit vegetables and meat.
The only thing which has shrunk our basket case balance of payments deficit is the depression. People have no money to spend. Therefore the only way to prosperity under globalisation is to make everyone really poor.
The other possibility of course is exports. 2 counties are doing well, China and Russia, because they export more than they import. Its pretty flaming obvious isn’t it?
We do not have to be fully sustainable to be solvent Gerrit. This is a facile remark. We simply have to pay our way. Obviously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
My english is not 100%. Not sure which Fell or Foul is the correct one. I like the Foul (deadly) one the best. Deadly as in decisive, not killer deadly.
Bit like my Then and Than. Never know which is the real (reel) one.
Have always understood it to be Foul but stand corrected if wrong in this metaphor.
Phil toms,
Dont think making everybody equally poor is going to win the Greens any elections.
Like the other option better of exporting (seeing 90% of what I manufacture is exported) to countries first and foremost who will pay.
Be it China, Russia, Zimbabwe or the USA. I really dont mind as long as the money is in the account before shipping. No money no shipping, simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
The money may be in the account but it is borrowed, the collateral being our real estate, our houses, our farms.
Nobody is suggesting making everyone equally poor. Your comments do not seem to follow a logical pattern. Carbon trading has little or nothing to do with our mounting debt.
Here is the disconnect. “The money is in the bank, so everything is fine”. Not true. It is a loan. We have sold huge amounts of assets infrastructure, land & buildings over the last 20 years and still our national debt is growing, from $3 billion in 1984 to $470 billion now, and our standard of living has plummeted, housing ownership has dropped, it now requires 2 parents working to raise a family where it used to take one.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
What is in the bank is available for my disposal. If the overseas customer has borrowed it (I or anyone else in New Zealand has not borrowed so what is the problem?) that is their concern.
One minute you want exports to China, Russia, etc. now exports are increasing the debt! How?
Keeping on about the problem (a problem we ALL know about) is not solving it. What would you do?
Nationalise all business? Buy nothing from overseas except stuff we dont make here (do we need overseas funds to buy these? – NZL been there done that back in 1960′s when a private individual could only buy a car/machinery/equipement,etc. if you were fortunate to have funds overseas)
Start up inefficient local assembly of imported components (NZL been there done that in the 1970′s) just to get full employment?
Carbon trading will have everything to do with our mounting debt. We can only buy or sell credits on the world market IF we have money overseas or overseas money is in NZL hands through exports.
If we dont export we can not afford the credits. If selling nobody wants to pay for the credits in NZL dollars for the dollar is worthless without exports.
So if a carbon trading scheme is in operation it will increase capital out the country, lessening the pot for welfare.
If carbon taxation is in place it will take money out of the hands of beneficiaries/workers, etc.
This taxation money goes where? If we were to spend it locally to mitigate carbon emmisions fine but it wont, it will pay off debt, (with AL Gore ticket clipping at 30%).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Gerrit – It is always “a fell swoop” referring to the action of a bird-of-prey.
A foul is not deadly unless it hits someone wrong, and it never swoops.
We don’t have a language as much as a collection of exceptions
ciao
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The article was a review of different FTTs and compared FTTs to GST. It concluded:
“Trade-offs are inevitable, but FTT has the potential to rate more highly than GST on the good tax scale.”
“FTT’s Achilles heal (sic) is the scope for avoidance” (or is it evasion – I get confused
).
Whether or not it can be successfully implemented, depends on whether the loopholes are fixed and thus it’s all about the detail, as some have already said above.
I was confused by the author when he started talking about significant economic impact in an extremely unlikely situation, “Clearly, without any changes in financial market behaviour (an extremely unlikely scenario), the FTT can be expected to have a significant economic impact.”
If you’re going to scare-monger, you shouldn’t say that it’s an extremely unlikely possibility.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
It’s fairly obvious that the productive and employment sector of the economy gains from a FTT, as taxation on the financial services sector is where most of the money raised from the tax is going to come.
The tax will not change the nature of the productive sector – the way they do business, and nor will such businesses take flight from New Zealand or hold the revenues they earn offshore there rather than return them to local producers who earnt them (in the case of Fonterra). Should it discourage the speculative side of finance it will ease the value of our currency and thus help the exporters.
The only casualtly might be the silly idea of making New Zealand some sort of back room hub for hedge funds and the like – and for the sake of our exporters (a lower doller) we should be happy about that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Gerrit
You will get no argument from me about the carbon tax. I don’t believe it will reduce emissions. However our debt was not caused by this. I tried to find where as you claimed I said exports increase our debt. I said the exact opposite.
We must sell more than we spend. The only way I know to do this is to limit what we spend to what earn. this is the beginning and the end of the problem, and the middle.
If I spend more than I earn for 25 years I will lose my house. Same applies to NZ. If we spend more than we earn we lose our sovereignty, our standard of living, and are unable to feed and house our elderly.
Globalisation prohibits us from limiting our spending to our earnings. It deliberately sends us bankrupt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, carbon credits are just another value/cost on the world market. They are as affordable as anything else to us, no more and no less. They will be on sale here to foreigners etc it’s not a an inflow/outflow issue of itself.
A carbon trading scheme is only a burden on workers/beneficiaries if costs are placed on consumers and not business.
The issue with what happens to the tax raised, is no different than for all other tax revenue – but generally diversifying sources is a good thing, and discouraging carbon use is also a good thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
phil toms, I agree with you beating the drum re the balance of payments deficit. NZ has been living in fairy land about this fact since..well since England joined the EEC…when was that again?
No political party seems to want to grasp that nettle, certainly not the Greenz, just witness their constant harping on about welfare payments. Just how do we afford them again?
And the Nats borrow how much each week?
Would Labour be borrowing even more?
It all makes me weep.
Then again maybe we aren’t playing the game nearly enough… maybe we should borrow MUCH MORE and then just say F U to the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Samian,
I think this is NZs central political issue and the source of great frustration among those who are awake. The Green’s unwillingness to acknowledge this as being the issue around which all others revolve threatens to undermine their credibility therefore their(our?) support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Given the Green Party is the only one in parliament that faced up to the issue of foreign borrowing sourced housing asset bubble (that exacerbated our BOP deficit) – proposing a CGT. Facing up to peak oil via supporting a carbon tax, energy efficient housing and transportation. Facing up to the handicapping of the export export sector because of the overvalued currency by supporting a changed approach to RB policy – including ideas such as a FTT.
So to say that somehow Greens are not credible because they don’t make the BOP deficit the priority in policy (or the budget deficit) or whatever other economic measure is used to claim that progressive policy is not affordable, is just more anti-Green attack politics.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
It is worth noting that the European Union has no actual powers in this area. Taxation is determined at the Member State level. MEPs can debate, draft or agree what they like, but it wont be imposed on any Member State.
Fiscal matters are up to Member States.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Libertyscott
At the moment I’d be loathe to guess what the “actual” powers of the EU are as opposed to their official powers, because some member states are clearly far more solvent than others.
Then too, they are getting together to, I think, discuss coordinating the imposition of such a tax. It would be IMHO, a very good thing…. so it probably won’t happen.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is not an anti green attack. I draw your attention to the discussion page on facebook (the public face of the Green party) and the subject raised “Every New Zealander now on avg owes $103,482″, and the official Green Party response.
I think you are correct to say the green party is more active on this subject than other parties, but as we know they are ALL globalists. It is nowhere near enough to save us. It is my opinion that electric cars are a very good way of reducing co2 at the same time as reducing borrowing for oil.
By refusing to encourage electric cars the greens do damage as they are supposed to be the supporters of such things. No doubt the oil companies are very pleased.
A capital gains tax will not do a lot for our balance of payments deficit, although I do support it, but not on the family home. The main issue here is to increase exports, something the greens turn a blind eye to. Also to halt the sale of our land buildings assets and infrastructure.
My alarm comes from having attended a candidate selection meeting in new Lynn attended by 13 people plus 4 officials at which I asked about our humungous debt and the candidate answering clearly did not understand the problem at all.
Clearly we must limit our spending to our earnings. This is essential for our survival but I have not seen the Greens say this anywhere ever.
It appears the greens fear that if the subject of the debt is raised that this threatens social welfare, what you call “progressive policies”. I never said anything of the sort.
My complaint is that Green attacks on the free market globalist nightmare are nowhere near robust enough, which leaves the ground open for phoneys such as Winston First. Also the political left seems entirely disillusioned with the Greens as a left force.
At the top of Waikumete hill there is a huge Labour party sign which says “No Asset Sales – Public Meeting”.
As for the greens – not even a bumper sticker. This is not the focus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The candidate meeting was at Glen Eden for selection of Waitakere and New Lynn candidates -the whole of West Auckland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@phil toms 10:12 AM
Not all Green candidates will necessarily have economics as one of their strengths, phil. However, there will be some training provided to ensure they are sufficiently up to speed to answer questions like that before they go out on the hustings.
Agree we should be making more noise about asset sales and foreign investment – there is this petiton doing the rounds though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wholely agree with this tax, but I think there is still a big problem on how we use the money,The bottom billion continue to decline and will become a major issue for our childern if we don’t address it now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When I wrote my original analysis (soon after followed by the Australian paper) the Tobin Tax had been highly favoured as an easy and efficient tax to administer, enforce and collect.
However, I found that while it was an attractive idea the devil was in the details. Federal States like Australia soon found it distorted transactions and investments between States. Also, a tax should generate more revenue than costs. The small rate of the FT (say 0.05%) meant that the tax on low value transactions cost more to collect than it collected. Hence set dollar amount kicked in on low value transactions. This gave rise to the regressive outcome I mentioned.
But it seemed to me that the real roadblock to its widespread adoption was the amount of novel legislation required to check avoidance (illegal) and evasion (legal prudent action).
Unless draconian controls over legitimate business are imposed then the drug cartel, arms traders and launderers prosper unfairly while legitimate business carries the costs.
Globalisation is not a conspiracy designed by some gnomes of Europe or wherever – it is a natural outcome of modern mobility in labour, resources and capital. If capital is mobile then labour must be too.
So before any party advocates a Tobin style tax they must have examined the past history, and the recent changes and new issues, and explain how they will avoid a repeat of the past experience which brought its expansion to a halt.
I am not saying it cannot be done. But it needs substantial homework.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The issue is to get buy-in from enough of the economic world to allow it to be done… that is, to make avoidance difficult and to put enough pressure on those places that do not participate that they do not provide tools to make avoidance possible.
I would agree Owen, that “the devil is in the details” but I do not regard that as a reason for this not to proceed. At present the financial community as a whole is best represented by Taibbi’s description – the “giant vampire squid” and it is sucking the lifeblood out of every nation, not just NZ.
It needs to be hammered flat. The average term of investment on Wall Street these days is measured in fractions of a second and governed by arcane computer algorithms. This has nothing to do with “investment”.
http://advancedtrading.com/algorithms/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218401501#undefined
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/07/goldmans-4-billion-high-frequency.html
It is in this context that we need to apply these rules and the cost, in the computerized world, is certainly far less than it historically was.
Globalization was not designed to impoverish everyone but bankers. It is a result of the success of the actual campaign based on fractional reserve banking, to consume more than several planets worth of resources in order to make everyone rich.
The EFFECT is that it impoverishes everyone but bankers because the intended goal was always impossible.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Phil Toms
The electric car is a specific solution. It sets an answer and in engineering terms I am quite dubious that it is the correct answer. I have discussed CNG conversions as a first step elsewhere. If you want to get into the nuts and bolts of energy density, vehicle mass ratios and efficiency we can go there. It isn’t IMHO the right path. Not sure what “the right path” is to be honest, only where the first STEP on that path is, and that’s the CNG which gets us off the fossil fuel addiction with Saudi Arabia as our friendly neighborhood pusher.
To build things here would not be related to building electric cars and batteries and I don’t regard the export earnings side as being the critical one for any technology we build.
We need to not be BUYING that tech from outside… taking it away from the expense side of the ledger.
We DO need to be building more things in NZ but that is an economics and investment problem to be addressed in economics and investment terms.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Why we need to tax and regulate financial transactions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html
http://www.metafilter.com/88184/Leading-bankers-destroy-7-of-value-for-every-pound-they-generate
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225183-Dear-Koch-Brothers-Tea-partiers-union-bashers-Anonymous-would-like-your-attention-please
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
We not only developed the technology to switch from petrol to CNG as required and we had wide penetration of the taxi fleets and light commercial vehicles.
Then Klasse Kompressors developed a domestic CNG compressor that could compress the gas for your cylinder from household gas mains overnight.
It was an eccentric rotary four stage compressor with no valves or seals (the seal was an oil seal) and could be machined on a CNC machining centre and produced for $100 at the time.
Then the oil price collapsed and CNG went out of fashion. Also the Government was hostile to the CNG compressor – largely on the grounds that the Italians were the experts and said it could not be done.
We finally licensed the technology to Bendix as a truck brake compressor, and to the Chinese as a regular industrial air compressor.
Time for a fresh look I guess.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Owen
Part of the reason I was pointing at this as a way forward is because I knew the tech is not unfamiliar to NZ. Something like you describe is almost exactly what I’d expect to see.
That it depends on the oil price is an issue of course, but I expect that to be less of an issue. It insulates us against price shocks from the rest of the world.
It prepares us for the next stages.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen said, “But it seemed to me that the real roadblock to its widespread adoption was the amount of novel legislation required to check avoidance (illegal) and evasion (legal prudent action).”
Are you sure about those terms?
This Achilles HEEL, is not a reason to not promote the idea. It is a reason to consult and discuss with as many affected parties as possible before introduction of the tax. So it is surprising that the author of your linked article thinks this is not a good idea. “In a somewhat surprising move, the Alliance Party is prepared to consult by entertaining “considerable discussion” prior to the introduction of the tax and is prepared to allow discussion to extend to the full range of issues and concerns arising from this new tax proposal”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin
Sorry got that the wrong way round.
Terms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, if only because of the many different languages.
But generally Governments make a distinction between tax avoidance which is the legal action to avoid paying more tax than required, and “criminal evasion”.
HIgh tax rates encourage more money is spent on avoidance – often quite simple such as couples forming companies to avoid paying high personal rates compared to company rates. Etc.
I am not saying whether a Tobin Tax is worth promoting but suggesting that a party proposal needs to be backed up by research. Changes in the world economy mean that some of the old issues have been lessened but some new issues have emerged as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen, your mix up seems almost ‘freudian’ to me.
Your example of a couple forming a business is actually an example of one of the benefits of a Tobin tax.
Yes higher taxes encourage avoidance/evasion. And since a Tobin tax would increase the tax take from people making large monetary transactions, and those people tend to be the ones who are into avoidance/evasion, there would be an increase in such behaviour.
So I agree there would be benefit from increasing the surveillance of such behaviour and making clear distinctions between ‘prudent’ behaviour and illegal tax dodges.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course illegal tax dodges, if unnoticed, can also be prudent..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
IMF supports a tobin tax http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2011/pr11114.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)