Why are the Robin Hood Tax people still lying?

David Hillman of the UK\’s Robin Hood Tax campaign – which backs the financial transactions tax and wants any cash raised to be earmarked for development – welcomed the agreement, but added that \”the UK public will be rightly angry that George Osborne is resisting efforts to make the City pay its fair share\”.

He said that a Robin Hood tax would \”boost growth as well as raising billions to tackle poverty and protect public services at home and abroad\”.

Given that the EU Commission\’s own report into the tax states that it will reduce GDP, how can this be said to increase growth?

Furthermore, leave aside that emipirical evidence at look at it from a theoretical Keynesian point of view.

They\’re suggesting that tax money be raised inside the EU. And then spent outside the EU on Third World development. This is, obviously and clearly, fiscally contractionary to the EU economy.

So they\’re wrong in fact and theory then.

And what I\’d like to know is, why are the cunts lying to us so egregiously?

It\’s entirely one thing to disagree about what makes the good society: and entirely another to just make shit up.

5 thoughts on “Why are the Robin Hood Tax people still lying?”

  1. One should rarely suspect mendacity when incompetence and ignorance are more likely explanations. Hillman et al are True Believers of the Cargo Cult variety, who can’t get round the fact that any corporate tax is ultimately paid by the customer. (Worstall, 101.)

  2. If a financial transaction tax was imposed by the EU, I’ve no doubt that it would be a disaster for those countries subject to it. However, in no way do I recall that any of the money it is supposed to raise is planned to be used for international development.

    As for lying, it is typical of the left that when presented with facts that don’t suit their narrative, they tend to ignore them – witness UK Uncut and the recent tax settlement report from the National Audit Office which undermined their Vodafone and Goldman Sachs accusations, yet they still persist…

  3. “However, in no way do I recall that any of the money it is supposed to raise is planned to be used for international development.”

    One of Osborne’s observations during a previous public discussion of the tax by EU finance ministers (last year?) was that not only would no banker pay the tax (tax incidence) but the money supposedly to be raised had already been spent (notionally) many times over, on a variety of things, including overseas aid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *