Thread: Robin Hood Tax

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

Unfortunately, that's not true. The public is footing the bill for political maneuvering and inflationary pork. The amount of money that went to actually covering bad debts is a joke; this was a big pile of money that got earmarked by people who didn't understand the problem or the solution and now is getting spent by people who don't care to accelerate the recovery as much as they care to cross off line items on their political agendas.

We don't need healthcare, we need jobs.

We don't need 20 miles per gallon to "fix" roughly 2% of global warming cause worldwide, we need investment in clean power grids.

We don't need to hire half a million people to assist with the census, we need to to hire half a million people to work on infrastructure as public reinvestment in economic growth.

I can agree with this, for the most part. All this talk about saving the envrionment with the tax and everything on that line is all on the same level as saying the tax will cure aids and set up colonies on mars, oh and bring about world peace and turn the world into paradise. But I'm not talking so much about the commercial, which has its head so far up its own ass that I can't imagine anyone taking it seriously, but the idea of this tax is worthy of consideration.

I understand, too, that most of what's being invested in now is mostly political posturing, but that's all part of another issue and I'll come to that later. North America really needs to invest in its infrastructure more than anything else. I would argue that health care counts as part of the infrastructure, as any government-funded public service does, but I see your points on the need now to improve the physical. But no company is going to invest in public infrastructure. We're sitting on an electric and sewer system built, for the most part, in the early 1900's with only minimal patch jobs to ensure they keep operating. The amount of money and effort required to overhaul this system and bring it up to modern standards will be astronomical, but again, no company is going to directly fund this. Provided infrastructure is made into a political issue, which I can see happening, although not necessarily in Obama's administration, the government can work on it.

Except for, you know, the money. So where does the money come from? Current levels of taxation won't begin to cover the necessary costs. Two years ago, government funding for, I believe, mostly just bridge maintenance and survey, required $375 billion, and received $286 billion (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20095291/). For water management: "The U.S Government Accountability Office estimates that nationwide up to a $1 trillion investment is needed in drinking water and wastewater systems over the next two decades." (http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/waterwedrink...astructure.cfm). 20 years is a long time (almost three times the length of a presidential term), but actually investing $1 trillion dollars in a single project that isn't the department of defense is something I've never heard of.

This is why I think the Robin Hood Tax is a good idea. There are things America (including Canada) needs to invest in, and infrastructure is high on this list. Once it gets made into a political issue, having this kind of funding available for it would contribute greatly to getting the job done, or at least started.

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

More public spending isn't going to fix anything; cutting back on the fat and realigning public spending to directly benefit long-term economic growth will fix these problems. Nobody was bitching about healthcare until someone threw out a fucking fantasy budget number and the actual recovery efforts cost a fraction of it. The healthcare system hasn't changed much (except that wonderdrugs that make our lives longer and more pleasant apparently became a right and not a priviledge) since Clinton, and no one had any problem with it until the role of government apparently shifted to acting as parents for whiny 9 year olds.

What do you meant by 'cutting back on the fat', though? When you're talking about government spending, this post (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/02/1...g-the-impulse/) seems pretty reasonable. When you mess with the budget, there are a few rules:

# Touch social security and you're dead.
# Touch Medicare and you're dead.
# Raise taxes and you're dead.
# Cut the military and you're dead.
# Create a huge deficit and you're dead.
# Defaulting on our debt is not an option.

So where can the cuts be made to save up more money?

I don't really want to get into the healthcare debate at all, unless it's pertinent to the discussion about the benefits this tax would have. That said, according to this one, lonesome chart, a deficit of over $1 trillion is run, and certain programs maintain their funding due to political manoevreing. Where will the money to deal with infrastructure come from? If you're talking about fixing infrastructure, there's a bill that is equal to or greater than the deficit that's being run. This is where I think this robin hood tax would be beneficial, although I'll admit my views are a little naive on the subject.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

Atmosfear is right. In the long run something like this "Robin Hood Tax" is only going to serve to fund governmental pet projects that are more about posturing than progress. The problem isn't financial institutions being too powerful, the problem is that the government isn't (and for the past 60 or so years now generally hasn't been) thinking long term in coming up with solutions to very foreseeable issues.

Yes, but that's an issue about how government seems to function these days. Either we try to engineer a paradigm shift of epic proportions and get rid of individualism in the government, or we try to get the effect we want from the broken system we have. The first choice couldn't conceivably happen any time soon, not without some sort of catastrophic event that breaks down government power on a local level, or some other upheaval that breaks how the government currently operates. So, I would suggest making something tangible and overall beneficial (infrastructure) into a real political issue, watch the politicians take it up for political posturing (the right thing for the wrong reasons) and fund it with this tax.

It will never work out that smoothly, but I still see real benefit coming from the tax, at least in this light.