I’d like to see the details before I write about it serisouly but from what I can gather it’s an extension of stamp duty, not really an FTT.
Which is why it raises such a piddling amount of money. And also why it’s so crazily bad of course but I would like to see their actual proposal.
Can’t find the manifesto itself online, but if the Indy’s report is accurate, then Timmy seems to be correct:
From here.
Target the traders? Oh course this will be passed on the investors including pension funds.
“the move could raise more than £5bm a year”
£5bm? That’s superb.
Have they invented a new number, or is this for Diane Abbott so that she doesn’t have to worry about whether it raises £5 million or £5 billion?
I’m sure that Labour would be delighted to show their workings but it appears the cleaners have been in during the night and threw away the fag packet the policy was written on.
Richard: It is short for BiMillion–which could be a million or a billion depending on how its feeling or which way the wind is blowing.
Diversity in all things.
Is that £5bm before or after they’ve factored in the second order affects of changed behaviour?
Oh, wait, Ive just remembered they don’t have second order effects in lefty land.
Those Labour FTT revenue workings in full:
We read on Wikipedia that X transactions take place in London every year, we propose a tax of Y per transaction, expected revenue = XY. We have of course already committed to spending XY at least twice in our manifesto pledges.