The Archbishop of Canterbury has repeated calls for a “Robin Hood” tax to be imposed on financial transactions as he spoke of the “acute” dangers of “paralysing” the voluntary sector through heavy public spending cuts.
Dr Rowan Williams said a tax of 0.05% on transactions in currency, stocks and derivatives between major financial institutions – and not High Street banks – could generate £20 billion a year for the UK.
Yes, yes, this will do it. Here in the US, the Robin Hooders spend approximately $1.50 for every $1.00 they take in taxes. That is a winning formula for a nation. We should be a 3rd rate socialist european state in no time.
One of the reasons why London became a major financial center is that Mrs Thatcher got rid of the 1/2 percent Stamp Duty on such transactions and in doing so encouraged international banks to come to London, bringing their business, employing our people and making the UK the world’s fourth largest economy at that time.
Not content with wrecking the institutions of the Anglican Communion, with this pontification, The Druid makes his contribution to the decline of the viability of London as a financial center.
Shut up Rowan, or get a job and see what real people have to deal with. You are a menace.
Isn’t this a tax proposed by the European Union? And if so isn’t that enough for us to know that it is pernicious?
[blockquote] it still has the potential to deal effectively with the acute current dangers of paralyzing the voluntary sector through heavy cuts in their public budgetary support,” he told an audience at King’s College.[/blockquote] What am I missing here? How do cuts in public spending paralyze the voluntary sector? Why does a voluntary sector need public budgetary support?
carl
Why is the Archbishop of Canterbury weighing in on tax policy? Is that not prima facie evidence by itself that this man’s priorities are deeply skewed? And even if he were expert enough to join this discussion, what possible credibility does he have given the sorry state of what is in his remit–the state of the Anglican Communion. Who would possibly listen to him?
So now the British government will be setting C of E policy while the ABC pronounces empty though eloquent gibberish on fiscal policy. Ah, the glories of Erastianism!
Now if the ABC would just leave politics alone long enough to develop a proper Christian moral conscience perhaps Anglicanism just might become something more than an instrument of legal marriage constructed on sodomy.
#5.
He’s “immanentizing the eschaton”. Bad archbishop. No biscuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton
The line to walk off the cliff starts right about here…
Intercessor
Ah, if only he had such moral clarity to match his grasp of macro-economics.
After doing such a great job leading the AC, given the growth and unity his actions have created, the ABC obviously feels he has a lot to offer to other leaders………..
Not sure the ABC realises that in a world with telephones and the ‘interweb’, such a tax would merely lead to trades being done in other countries – the idea is only sensible if it is accepted globally. If London does it and NY and HK do not, it will not raise anything for the UK govt….it wlil actually lead to a fall in tax receipts…… just as the 50% tax rate is leading to a fall in receipts (the Treasury told Brown it would…. but politics was the motivation for the 50% rate and only political reasons stop Cameron from getting rid of it today…..because of all the bleating there would be about helping the rich…….. so, we get lower tax receipts as a direct result of a 50% rate in the UK which applies to 0.05% of the population. Politics is a dirty business….inside and outside the church……….
Yes – such a confident, clear voice in support of progressive politics. And such a wavering, weak, and ambivalent voice for the gospel.
🙄
So, he’s an economist and a financial adviser now, too?!!
Progressive politics, now that is a useful term. Whenever I see the word progressive, I run.
All good points.
But I wonder if there is another dimension – poor Rowan is feeling the financial pinch, and I am sure he fancies his chances of diverting some of the proceeds of such a tax so as to relieve CofE’s financial burdens.
Owing in large part to the liberalism that Rowan promotes (and which his predecessors Coggan and Runcie also promoted) CofE income is falling. Many parishioners are leaving, either for other churches or just dropping out. Some of the large evangelical CofE churches are finding ways to divert their contributions away from the CofE hierarchy.
[blockquote] The money would then be divided between domestic public services and international development projects, he said in a speech in London on the Big Society vision, first outlined by David Cameron. [/blockquote]
Sure, and I wonder how much of it might get diverted to costs that CofE in the past has met?! Rowan needs to find some way to divert government funds to CofE, because its overheads are huge.
Maybe Rowan is striking for another do nothing job in politics. He’s perfectly suited for that.
Why is there supposedly a need to tax these transactions? Because they have become corrupt. With all due respect, Rowan Williams reminds me of Fannuci saying to Vito Corleoni in The Godfather, “Young man, I hear you and your friends are stealing goods. But you don’t even send a dress to my house. No respect! You know I’ve got three daughters. This is my neighborhood. You and your friends should show me some respect. You should let me wet my beak a little.” Yet another example of the typical Anglican strategy of co-opting sinful excesses rather than reforming them. Instead of taxing these transactions, have the courage to call for their reform. They have become corrupt, and to merely tax them is tacit endorsement. Call for justice. The benefits of reform to society will be much greater than a mere .05%.