• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

French Ambassador in support of European Financial Transactions Tax




dunno

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,286
All that tax will mean is more business for the City of London, and any place that does not opt for it. Dodgy Dave will be even more chillaxed with this, as he won't back it, and a lot of companies will just work through London.
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,684
As long as I don't have to pay it, I don't care.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,559
All that tax will mean is more business for the City of London, and any place that does not opt for it. Dodgy Dave will be even more chillaxed with this, as he won't back it, and a lot of companies will just work through London.
The proposal, as I understand it, will mean that any transaction that originates or terminates in any participating FTT EU state will be subject to the tax. If the one state is a non-participant, than the participant state will collect (and keep) the tax due for both ends of the transaction.
 

TheWexfordInn

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
12,138
I think that the rule is that people are always is favour of new taxes if they think someone else is going to pay for them and they are going to benefit from them. Hence Monsieur Hollandes enthusiasm for this tax which will be raised largely in London.
 

dunno

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,286
The proposal, as I understand it, will mean that any transaction that originates or terminates in any participating FTT EU state will be subject to the tax. If the one state is a non-participant, than the participant state will collect (and keep) the tax due for both ends of the transaction.
I'm sure it has been designed to ensure collection, but it might only benefit the City. Anyhow, there are a good many states that would not even consider it. Might be a good idea, but will never, ever happen.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,187
Saturday, October 20, The Irish Times: Ambassador thinks Ireland should support it. French Ambassador also supports efforts to reduce sovereign debt
Is it a company policy of THESH!TERIMES to publish the opinions of people looking for the right to suck resources from others ?

Suds has been given a platform for justifying sucking PAYE taxpayers money to bailout other plutocrat bankers.

Dan McLaughlin and Austin Hughes wrote novels of articles in favour of the euphoria that caused debt binges.

And then we have myhole dot ie
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557
The proposal, as I understand it, will mean that any transaction that originates or terminates in any participating FTT EU state will be subject to the tax. If the one state is a non-participant, than the participant state will collect (and keep) the tax due for both ends of the transaction.
Rest assured London bankers will find a way of ensuring that no transactions are happening for participant states to tax. They probably have a team of six million banking lawyers working on it as we speak.
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,559
I'm sure it has been designed to ensure collection, but it might only benefit the City. Anyhow, there are a good many states that would not even consider it. Might be a good idea, but will never, ever happen.
I think that it has secured enough support to trigger an enhanced cooperation mechanism.

The idea is that the tax would apply on any transaction originating or ending in any participating country. If the transaction involves the UK (non-participating) and Germany (participating) then Germany would keep all of the tax collected on the transaction. If it involved two participating states than both would share the tax collected equally.

The downside to non-participation is that other states will keep tax revenue that you could have been entitled too. I think that the UK will be happy to take that risk and suspect that Ireland can certainly not join without the UK.
 

Analyzer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
46,187
My understanding is that transaction taxes disproportionately effect high frequency trading. And very little of that happens in Dublin anyway. If it came down to it, we should support the tax in exchange for a deal on bank debt.
...sounds kind of familar....with the Irish taxpayer getting ignored again, once Brussels gets what it wants.
 

MDaniel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
552
My understanding is that transaction taxes disproportionately effect high frequency trading. And very little of that happens in Dublin anyway. If it came down to it, we should support the tax in exchange for a deal on bank debt.
Will Labour support it? Do they understand how it works and if they do can they convince FG who don't seem to have a clue with the whole lot of government ministers relying on our "expert" Noonan.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
32,952
My understanding is that transaction taxes disproportionately effect high frequency trading. And very little of that happens in Dublin anyway. If it came down to it, we should support the tax in exchange for a deal on bank debt.
All taxes are passed on to the consumer at the end of the day.
 

MDaniel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
552
I think that it has secured enough support to trigger an enhanced cooperation mechanism.

The idea is that the tax would apply on any transaction originating or ending in any participating country. If the transaction involves the UK (non-participating) and Germany (participating) then Germany would keep all of the tax collected on the transaction. If it involved two participating states than both would share the tax collected equally.

The downside to non-participation is that other states will keep tax revenue that you could have been entitled too. I think that the UK will be happy to take that risk and suspect that Ireland can certainly not join without the UK.
I thought we were a sovereign government (pun intended!)petunia
 

dizillusioned

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
14,868
Saturday, October 20, The Irish Times: Ambassador thinks Ireland should support it. French Ambassador also supports efforts to reduce sovereign debt
Oh come on he is the French Ambassador, he is about as useful as any other ambassador on the planet, no use (imo) The vast majority of the highly paid people are simply political appointees, who's sole aim in life is to survive on the tax payer. Representing their country for what purpose? Ambassadors are simply useless ... and I have met a huge amount.

This guy is obviously purely supporting what the french government want... a little puppet who will never rock the boat, to justify his existence.
 

devnull

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,843
My understanding is that transaction taxes disproportionately effect high frequency trading. And very little of that happens in Dublin anyway. If it came down to it, we should support the tax in exchange for a deal on bank debt.
The Swedes tried an FTT in the 1980s, long before HFT became common and it was a fiasco, mainly because it was too easy to avoid it by doing the trading in London (Swedish futures trading fell by 98% and the options trading market collapsed).
The designers of the European FTT seem to have learnt lessons from that and tried to avoid the same fate, but it's hard to see how it can work with Zurich, Luxembourg, Amsterdam and London all outside the FTT system, never mind the non-European financial centres.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top