By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
A new coalition of charities, trades unions and aid agencies have called on political parties to unite behind a financial transactions tax – the so-called Robin Hood Tax – that could raise up to £250 billion every year. The group estimates that such a levy could be used to avoid cuts to vital public services and for a range of good causes including:
* Meeting the Government’s target to halve child poverty (£4bn).
* Ending the benefit trap that makes it too expensive for people to leave welfare and return to work (£2.7bn).
* Protecting schools and hospitals at home and abroad under threat of cuts.
* Meeting the Millennium Development Goals to cut child deaths by two-thirds, maternal mortality by two-thirds and tackle malaria and HIV/AIDS.
* Providing resources to enable a deal to be done on tackling climate change.
The campaign is backed by fifty organisations including Oxfam, the TUC, Barnardo's, ActionAid and the Salvation Army and launches today with a film made by Richard Curtis and starring Bill Nighy:
Yesterday, the campaign beamed an image with the words "Be part of the world's greatest bank job" onto the Bank of England in London.
The campaign's website went live at midnight on Tuesday night.
Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam, said:
"A tiny tax on banks would make a massive difference to the millions of ordinary people around the globe forced into extreme poverty by the economic crisis."
Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have all spoken out in recent months in support of a transaction tax. Last September, Gary Kent wrote on LabourList that unions and think tanks should start a campaign for the Tobin tax – looks like he got his wish!
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
including indirect taxation and non-domestic rates re-allocation - but the system of Treasury Grant was introduced in 1856 - and it's now calculated by a formula grant so that Barnsley may be a net gainer by it
Your statement was that you asked the Finance Director of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council "how much in every pound of Council tax funds the pension scheme".
I explained quite clearly that a local authority has more than one source of income, and it is all these sources that "fund the pension scheme."
Your assumption that local government operations, including staff costs, pensions contributions an' all, are only funded by the Council Tax is plain wrong.
"Where does the government funded element of council tax come from? Ah, now that would be - the taxpayer."
Exactly - and so do National non-domestic rates, so that the employer contributions to the staff pension schemes have to be divided by the total received from the three sources, not just Council tax.
It's like asking "what percentage of my council tax is spent on education?" If the Director of Finance applies the whole of the education expenditure as a proportion of Council tax, the answer will be misleading - you'd probably get an answer in the region of 70 per cent, which added to the "28 per cent spent on employee pensions", leaves bu%%er all for everything else that a local authority does.
As far as the Police and Fire services are concerned, these authorities - as far as I know - are not run by councils, but by separate committees. The Council acts as a collecting agency only - at least, it does in Cheshire ; I can't say for Barnsley.
Listen, lass, just because the Oakwell Brewery (one of the best pints in the land, and I had plenty when I was younger) closed all those years ago - please get over it .....I bet it was closed down under the Tories ....
What town, county do you live in?
I'll take a look myself - 77 per cent of income from Council Tax seems awfully high.
On Chris Cook, "ditto".
First I heard of "The Tobin Tax" was at G20 when Gordon Brown asked the IMF to look at it & include it with the rest of ideas put forward.
The media here had a field day saying all the G20 were against it & Randall had Tim Guitner(US treasury)to verify that the americans would never accept it,http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/08/darling-brown-tobin-tax-obama
The IMF must know this is the right thing to do ie. introduce a levy(Tobin tax). The IMF have been emptying their coffers to help Countries,so! this is a way to claw back money that could be used for good causes.
cheers
Me too, I may be reading it wrong, these are the figures:
WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM
Re-distributed non-domestic rates £38,798,000
Govt, Revenue Support Grant £5,401,000
Govt area based grant £15,548,000
Precept (council tax payers) £188,438,000
TOTAL FUNDING £248,185,000
Like I say we have the lowest government grant in the country. The govt area based grant appears o be new this year (whatever it is), and a £5m grant out of a quarter of a billion is pitiful. But like I say I may be reading that all wrong.
Maybe I am only paying £200 in to someone elses pension.
What don't you understand?
A local authority has three sources of tax-payer funded income : Council Tax, government grant and business rates. LA contributions to pension schemes are funded by, and properly spread across, these three sources of income, not just Council Tax. Part of your VAT on shopping, income tax, petrol duty and so on goes towards local authority funding, and businesses collect the money to pay rates from consumers, ie you, Sir.
From central government 56%
From business rates (in the formula grant) 20%
From Council Tax 26%
As PB indicates, there are other income streams too - payments for services (recreation, fines, environmental charges, planning charges usw)
I don't understand, am I imagining handing over all that money?
Correct - read "millions!!" (I'm that used to writing billions when it comes to tax, etc, I went into "autopilot").
However, the ratios are the same and people are ignoring the other two streams of local authority income - government grant and business rates.
And, so does the Wales article .... which also does not include the annual grant made "by Westminster" to Wales - about £14 billion this year.
To repeat - LA (and Welsh) employer contributions to staff pensions are not wholly financed by Council Tax.
"Hang on, so out of my £1000 council tax ...."
No, you aren't because the question that Ms Kirby asked assumed that local authority pensions contributions were financed wholly by Council Tax.
LAs have two other tax-payer funded income streams, namely a government grant and business rates, which you make a contribution towards.
And, LAs generally have other income streams, eg cemetry/crematorium fees, planning fees, car parking, room rentals and so on.
The "out of my council tax" approach is plain wrong.
"I asked the question of the Director of Finance `how much of every £1 I pay in council tax funds the pension scheme', and the answer came back, reluctantly, 27%."
Hang on, so out of my £1000 council tax (incidentally about 15% of my nett income) I am paying £270 into someone elses pension? Why, that's let me see, exactly £270 more than I can afford to pay into mine. And I still haven't recovered from finding out yesterday I prop up people on over £31,000pa.
"I asked the question of the Director of Finance `how much of every £1 I pay in council tax funds the pension scheme', and the answer came back, reluctantly, 27%."
Barnsley MBC (like all local authorities) receives income from a number of sources and your Council tax (CT) contributions constitute just one, the other taxation funded sources being a grant from Central Govt (GG) and national non-domestic business rates (BR).
Roughly, for 2008/09, BMBC received £30 billion GG, £80 billion CT and £90 billion BR. Contributions to the pension scheme by BMBC were £22.7 billion, which is indeed about 27-28 per cent of council tax receipts.
However, as a proportion of all the receipts, the BMBC pensions contribution was about 11.4 per cent and this is the true burden against all taxes levied, not "28 per cent of your council tax."
And yes, in answer to a previous question of yours, I am afraid that defined benefit schemes, whether public or private sector, are not viable in the long term.
By the way, have you thought of asking the finance director of Tesco, say, how much of your weekly shop goes towards financing the Tesco pension scheme?
As far as I am aware, the contributions for LG and HE pension schemes are 14% by the employer and 7% by the employee, although there have been very recent changes. It is open to the schemes to alter the terms and conditions of entitlement, just as the terms and conditions of private pension schemes may be affected. Both schemes rely on investments in equities. As far as I am aware, both schemes are in the hands of trusts.
`I doubt that it is so'
Errr.... yes it is. That is why the deficit of local government schemes is shown on each council's annual budget.
Any local government pension scheme deficit is guaranteed by local taxpayers. Any government pension scheme is guaranteed by UK taxpayers.
The current deficit of these schemes takes the UK deficit to over 120% of GDP.
I asked the question of the Director of Finance `how much of every £1 I pay in council tax funds the pension scheme', and the answer came back, reluctantly, 27%. `How will deficits in the scheme be funded?', answer, `through council revenue', ie council tax, 'or increases in contribution', but these aren't planned.
I doubt that that is so. If you work in local government or Higher Education, the nature of your pension will be determined by the investment return on equities. Changes are already being made to LG and HE pension 'entitlements'. One of the scandals is that the changes are taking effect at the bottom first. Those not in academic or academic-related unions - i.e. the porters, cleaners, etc - have already been affected. Each university runs its own pension scheme for those people and several universities have already unilaterally changed the entitlements. Academic and academic-related people are in the USS (Universities Superannuation Scheme) which is now considering changes to pension entitlements because of a shortfall in investments caused by the poor performance of equities. Those changes are almost certain to take effect in the very near future. I remember from many years ago that USS was awash with money - its participants were demanding that pensions be arranged at two-thirds final salary because there was so much sloshing around in the scheme. The result of the poor performance of equities is a deficit in the scheme now.
It will not be the banks - they will just pass on the cost to customer with higher charges, interest rates, DD or SO charges and lower savings interest, just like they always do.
As usual it will be us in the middle paying what is in effect a further indirect tax on our income.
Great idea in theory but nope, I just do not buy it.
Jo
Thanks, David.
The numbers relating to the "burden of taxation" are all taxes - on income, on expenditure, both central and local government combined.
I chose "household income taxes" purely as an illustration that personal income taxes have not "massively increased" under Labour.
By the same token, Council tax has "taken off", as it were.
Now, as far as "where has all the money come from", by and large from a slightly higher tax burden on a significantly increased national output, so that if we look at 1996/97 and 2007/08 (when we still had a growing economy), in current money :
1996/97 :
GDP £792.4 billion
Taxes & NIC : £269.4 billion (34.0 % of GDP)
Other receipts : £19.4 billion
Total receipts : £288.8 billion (36.4 %)
Total expenditure : £316.2 billion (39.9 %)
Borrowing : £27.4 billion (3.5 %)
Total Public Sector net debt : £347.2 billion (42.5 %)*
* GDP for 12 months centred on end of fiscal year)
2007/08
GDP £1,420 billion
Taxes & NIC : £516.1 billion (36.4 % of GDP)
Other receipts : £32.6 billion
Total receipts : £548.7 billion (38.6 %)
Total expenditure : £583.6 billion (41.1 %)
Borrowing : £34.9 billion (2.5 %)
Total borrowing* : £526.9 billion (36.5 %)**
* excluding Northern Rock intervention
** centred on 12 months, as before
So, comparing the two fiscal years in current pounds :
GDP : up 81 per cent
Taxes & NIC : up 91.5 per cent
Total receipts : up 90 per cent
Total expenditure : up 84.6 per cent
Total net borrowing : up 51.8 per cent
So, relative to GDP in 1996/97, in 2007/08 taxes, NIC contributions and total gov receipts went up by about 6 per cent more, gov expenditure by about 3 per cent more and borrowing reduced by about 14 per cent.
Easy peasy .... and all the numbers are on the public record, either in the Public Finances Databank (HM Treasury) or ONS (Public Sector Finances - monthly reports).
I think some real passion is expressed on LL, from the writers of pieces(including Alex), and great bloggers like yourself, Ludwig,
Peter, Ralph, and many others.
I also think things could become a lot more heated coming up to the election- so we all need to pay heed to people's feelings.
However- I'm suffering with the flu this week- so will have to go soon!!
Bye for now, Jo.
That is clearer, but it throws up more questions. Firstly, what about the 2nd part of my question, about why the figures do not balance up?
I assume that is because you deal with 'income tax', not all taxes, including indirect ones. Is that the case?
Additionally, would I be right in saying that comparing GDP with household income taxes is comparing apples and pears - GDP could rise massively whilst household income rises at a much lower rate. This would give a false impression that individual taxation has not increased relative to the ability to pay...
Cheers,
David
I'd love to hear about your experiences that led you to Labour too?
I may not have much more time today, but will be returning when I can.
I'd also like to say I'm more than happy if you'd like to exchange emails via Alex- (also Peter B and Chris to?)- if that's OK with Alex!
Thanks so much again, Jo.
You are a truly wonderful person. Thanks for all that you did then.
On this subject I can only make general observations, but I'm very glad to hear from people like Chris Cook, yourself, Ludwig and David, who appear to have knowledge and expertise.
As a personal anectdote, I was living in London throughout the 80's(working partially in a psychiatric emergency clinic in Camberwell)- and witnessed first hand the gulf between vulnerable sections of society, and the visible "Yuppie" culture.
Many more homeless people were seen on street corners, alongside flashy cars and suits! It was the stuff of film...reminded me a little of the excesses of NYC too.
Also, my partner lived with and knew frends who worked for big banking institutions, as stock brokers, accountants,and high profile positions.Even some of them commented on how ridiculous it was such huge sums of money were being exchanged, and massive wages.Having said that, it can be a hugely pressurized enviroment to work in, and really "dog eat dog" culture.
The individuals he and I knew in those enviroments had social consciences too- but were just as stuck as the rest of us in a pervasive culture...maybe that doesn't reflect all- but they are just as human as the rest of society.Perhaps it is just the big business culture/greed that is at fault?
I think Chris Cook has an excellent slant on this- and seems to be suggesting businesses with ethical working practices?
And perhaps breaking them down into smaller units to reduce their power?
Maybe that is part of what Obama is trying to acheive.
Anyway- all best Peter!
I'll be posting intermittently when time permits- but do read some of the stories and comments too.
Jo.
I doubt it.
I believe that Mr Obama "wants the money back from the banks."
In the end, it's individuals that make economic and financial decisions, and if the "money back from the banks" is deducted from profits, it'll actually be the shareholders ("individuals") that pay, not "the banks."
Likewise, the banking crisis was caused by the actions (or inactions, in the case of the board of RBS, for example) of individuals - the same individuals who are still awarding themselves massive bonuses. These are the people who really should be doing the "paying back."
After all, it is part of the classic Conservative creed that "people should be responsible for the results of their own actions."
How to get at them? I don't know - and I'm not so sure that anyone else does, apart from Chris Cook perhaps.
People are forgetting something else though.
It's not only banks who make financial transactions. Corporates do and so do pension funds...who are managing YOUR money. You wouldn't end up taxing banks (who would pass much of the cost of the new tax to end users anyway) but you WOULD end up taxing other businesses.
So the net effect would be pension funds under more pressure and finding it more difficult to perform and businesses finding their growth consstrained by another tax - one which would directly affect their ability to expand and trade abroad.
Good job guys.
2.
As to saying that the tax burden is lower than under the Conservatives that isn't strictly true. The current tax burden on national income is 2.1% higher than in 1996/7, and will rise a further 1.3% this year.
Add to that the staggering increase in stamp duty, which is now being paid by people on very ordinary incomes and also the fact that council tax has increased by 68% in like for like terms, and you've got a significantly higher tax burden.
Since the budget deficit and the national debt have also increased, we now have a situation where we not only pay more tax as individuals, but also are liable - each and every one of us - for all the debt incurred. We are all in effect the new `names at Lloyds'.
"speaking of of APD and polar bears ...."
I try not to make any comments regarding climate change, global warming, man-made contributions and so on : (i) I don't know enough and (ii) the ess aitch eye tee starts to fly ....
Is that the 'living will' insurance levy being pursued by the UK?
2 On the Tobin tax - it could only be introduced, if at all, by agreement in the G20 and the G20 would decide how it is disbursed
3 Of course it won't make it into the Labour manifesto - it depends on international co-operation
4 I noted on here someone proclaiming some time ago that he was employed by a large business which allowed him to stay in plush hotels and have excellent lunches, but that that was a different matter from the corruption of the MPs since it was within the rules of his company - well, who pays for that at the end of the day? - the consumer through higher prices - these business people are having their residence in plush hotels and nice lunches at our expense
Thanks for the comment.
What the D Mail article does is give the numbers in current pounds, not relative to gross domestic product, which is our "ability to pay", if you like.
In other words, if your income rises from £100 a week to £200 a week, and gasoline goes up from a £1 a gallon to £1.50 a gallon, yes, gasoline has gone up "by 50 per cent", but the true cost to you is actually less because your income has actually doubled.
You have to use the same "measuring principle" with national income, or, more precisely, gross domestic product (GDP), which is measured three ways : output, income and expenditure (and a derivative fourth actually, the "average" of the three).
In 1996/97, household income taxes were £78.7 billion on a GDP of £792.4 billion : 9.93 per cent of output. In 2007/08 - the time that the hapless Heathcoat Amery wrote his article, household income taxes were £151.3 billion on a GDP of £1,420 billion : 10.65 per cent of output. In other words, the money collected via household income taxes went up, relative to national output, by 10.65 divided by 9.93 = 7.3 per cent, which is a long way from Heathcoat Amery's 80 per cent.
The 4.4 per cent that I used was the burden of taxation relative to GDP ie "ability to pay."
Using Heathcoat Amery's "method of measurement," taxation in the Conservative years, relative to 1978/79, went up from £58 billion (33 per cent of GDP) to £269 billion (34 per cent of GDP) : up 360 per cent, whereas the "true" measurement of the burden of taxation for that period is up just 3.3 per cent, and that is the figure that I would use.
I hope that's clear ....
I think that the collection of levies or taxes through the clearing system is a no-brainer, but in view of the mobile nature of banks and money we need to look again at the framing and the rationale.
If you go back prior to 1855, investors in banks did not have the benefit of limited liability, and as with Lloyds of London's 'names' the investors could be wiped out - see Bank Collapses in the Scottish free banking era.
Bank investors (and indirectly the management) now have on the one hand the privilege of 'free' limitation of liability, and on the other the backing of the State for the banking system. The combination, as we have seen is privatisation of profits and socialisation of losses.
I would abolish all other taxes on banks - especially Corporation Tax - and introduce a limited liability levy on GROSS bank revenues. This would be deducted through the clearing system and would apply to all national and international transactions.
Such a levy would essentially be a levy on unearned income by investors from their privilege of limited liability - which I believe to be a fundamentally equitable approach to taxation. We would abolish taxation of dividends as well, of course.
Such a levy would fall principally upon shareholders although there is no reason why they should not share the pain with their principal 'costs' - the privileged and vastly overpaid top management.
A Limited Liability Levy for banks would require only the support of the US, UK and EU, I think, since the use of the $, £ and € clearing system is fairly general.
It's not Rocket Science.
Off Topic: speaking of of APD and polar bears, does Milliband Jnr still have a job now that Anthropomorphic Climate Change has at last been shown to be mostly a fiction based on anecdotal evidence rather than hard science?
I'm not in any way an economist, but as a general point:
I don't see why banks shouldn't play their part in sharing responsibility for society, especially in the light of the banking crisis sparking off a global recession?(And now look at the consequences of that.)
Simon Schama recently presented a critique of the Obama administration and was asking questions about how to get this balance right- between "Wall Street and Main Street?"
Somewhere in the middle seems about right.
In times of a deep recession we all need to play our part; banks are not immune from taxes!
Thanks for that. I am not an economist, but I will accept your figures at face value.
It does, however, go against things like this (Daily Mail...)
Which brings me to another, perhaps naive, point:
They have nearly tripled the NHS budget.
They have doubled education spending.
The defence budget has remained more or less static.
Yet, according to your figures, tax take has only gone up by 4.4%. The vast amounts of money cannot all have come from efficiency savings, so where has it come from? Debt?
As I said, perhaps a naive question. But the two sides do not seem to balance.
Your point about passing on the losses is a valid one. As I have said previously, governments should have told them to shove it, and let the incompetent businesses go to the wall. For all the claims that the world would have ended, it is simply not true. Other banks / businesses would have stepped in and bought up the assists and customer base.
So, your point is valid, but we were wrong to rescue the. More fool us.
My point about the tax being passed on has yet to be challenged by any commenter. I suspect because we all know it is true. In this case, Robin Hood would not be taking from the Rich to give to the poor. He would be taking from the tax payer to redistribute as the government sees fit. It is yet another tax the man/woman in the street.
I doubt that this proposal will make it into the Labour Manifesto. "We will raise taxes so we can spend it with the same failed policies".
Think about this : corporation tax and employer's NI contributions are abolished. What will a company do? Shove the "savings" in the direction of the shareholders? Cut prices? Spend the money (or part thereof) on capital formation?
Back to the drawing board.
(*Corporation Tax, Stamp Duty on share transactions, employee N.I contributions etc)
How have you not noticed?
"the Government has massively increased taxes since '97"
Actually, it hasn't. The generally accepted measure of the burden of taxation "net taxes and NI contributions as a proportion of GDP" was 34.0 per cent in 1996/97 ; in 2007/08 it was 36.3 per cent and in 2008/09, 35.4 per cent. The average over the twelve Labour years to the end of fiscal 2008/09 was 35.5 per cent of GDP : about 4.4 per cent more relative to the inherited level.
I would not describe 4.4 per cent more as "massive."
And, the average burden for the 18 Conservative years was 35.4 per cent of GDP - just 0.1 per cent lower than the burden under Labour.
The main rate of income tax has been reduced under Labour, and the main rate of Corporation Tax also reduced. VAT is unchanged - except for VAT on domestic heating fuel, gas and electricity, which was halved from 10 per cent to 5 per cent.
These taxes account for nearly 52 per cent of all taxes collected.
The gap between "rich and poor" may have widened but this is not the same as the "poor getting poorer."
Paul Pinfield is correct, perhaps ("it is inevitable that the banks will pass this on").
All taxes are, in the end, paid for by individuals, even Corporation Tax (money diverted from shareholders) and Employer's NI contributions - all the employer does is collect money through sales, and diverts some of it to government. In fact, all "company" taxes are paid for by customers or shareholders ie individuals.
I don't think Paul Pinfield realised the irony in his comment about the banks passing on the proposed tax - that's exactly what they did with the massive losses that they incurred in the last decade, with the result that taxpayers world-wide are now looking at hundreds of billions of their pounds, dollars, euros, whatever fed into the banks to keep them afloat and functioning.
And as I said, loony. I deliberately said that it wouldn't work.
Remember the Adidas sweatshops farce of a few years ago?
Yet, for some reason, the left think it is bad for UK workers to get exploited, but do nothing that will stop workers in other countries from being exploited. We in the west are perfectly willing to buy goods from countries and companies where the welfare standards are hideous. The best way of helping these people is not to give their Governments cash lump sums, but to make sure that their wages are increased and conditions improved. Bottom-up rather than trickle-down. As, I believe, eventually happened in the Adidas case.
Another idea: A 'welfare' standard is introduced - say a ten-star system. Independent investigators of into factories and check the welfare standards repeatedly, and the factories are ranked. The end-seller can then display this welfare rating, and the public can choose based on price and welfare. Of course, there are massive flaws with this as well, for instance welfare in component suppliers (e.g. cloth for clothes, circuit boards for electronics). Corruption would also be a problem.
Yet there are signs that this might work. Laws have been passed to make electronics lead-free (RoHS), despite problems (e.g. tin whiskers). Manufacturers of electronics goods have to ensure that *all* the components within their systems meet the RoHS requirements, including subcomponents. Why not do a similar thing for welfare standards, and have them displayed? Allow consumers to make a choice.
Something needs doing about this, and I would expect the left to take a lead. Instead, they have been supine.
Of course that will not work for many reasons (and will also have short-term nasty consequences). But it is a fairer way of helping workers in third-world countries and our own manufacturing than this idea."
That's "helping" as in "destroying even the low-paid jobs they have now"?
You said it- loony.
Firstly, banks are already taxed. After all, from their website: "The 0.5% Stamp Duty paid on shares on the London Stock Exchange is one of many taxes on financial transactions now in place."
Might it be better to concentrate on closing the loopholes that exist before creating *new* laws for people to avoid?
Secondly,
"A tiny tax on banks would make a massive difference to the millions of ordinary people around the globe forced into extreme poverty by the economic crisis."
I doubt it will. It is a grand claim that demands grand proof. How will it help a farmer in rural China or a child in the slums of Mumbai? Much of this assumes that Governments *care* about their populations.
Remember, the Government has massively increased taxes since '97 and yet the poverty gap has increased. Perhaps it is time not to do the mindless thing of raising more taxes, but looking at why, despite increased spending, some people are getting poorer? We can spend the money we have in much better ways.
Thirdly: It says: "So the Robin Hood Tax would be applied wherever a transaction takes place". Yet that is essentially meaningless. Bank A in UK makes a transaction with Bank B in US. At which end is the tax paid? Ours? Theres? Both? What happens if there was an intermediary country that was not a signatory? I want these details laid out on the website.
Fourthly: Their website is exceptionally light on figures. They seem to care more about having masks to download on their website that providing us with answers to questions.
Fifthly: Internationalism. There is a section on the 'Global context', but such a campaign has to be global. Instead, it is on a .org.uk domain. Most of the charities are British-based or western-thinking. Where are German charities and organisations? French? American? All in all, very weak.
Sixthly: They mention 'their own campaign research'. Yet whilst they link to the research of others, they do not show their own. Please do.
From their website:
"The UK poverty-fighting charities who are supporting the Robin Hood tax have highlighted tackling child poverty, reforming the welfare system, investing in affordable housing and making homes more energy-efficient as the key issues to be tackled by the revenues from the Robin Hood Tax."
So nothing that will actually *generate* new wealth, then? Additionally, we shall be giving money to countries like India and China, who care more for grand projects than their own populations.
It is also terribly named. People will start talking about the 'robbing' tax.
This idea might be a goer, but certainly not in the way it is presented here.
So here is another loony idea: We tax imports based on a welfare index of the populations of the countries who make them. After all, a reason for our lack of manufacturing is the low-cost labour in some other countries (along with bad management, union intransigence, lack of Government investment etc). This means the low-cost labour is, by our standards, exploited. So we add an import tax relative to the difference in welfare standards and pay.
Of course that will not work for many reasons (and will also have short-term nasty consequences). But it is a fairer way of helping workers in third-world countries and our own manufacturing than this idea.
There is a fatal flaw with this 'plan'. Whilst it is hiding behind the 'tax the evil bankers' agenda, the tax will be paid by account holders because it is inevitable that the banks will pass this on.