Proceeding contribution from Harry Cohen (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 25 March 2010. It occurred during Budget debate on Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Absolutely. The only reason why the banking sector is in existence is because of taxpayers' investment; it would have gone completely flat otherwise. If we are to solve the deficit problem, those profits, instead of going into the big bonuses of bankers, should come back to the taxpayer. My second suggestion for a tax boost is the Robin Hood tax, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for promoting it. I have an e-mail from Jonathan Tench of Oxfam, who says that the bank levy""is an important step in the right direction"," but that it""does not match the scale of resources required to tackle the deficit in the UK or provide enough resources to tackle global poverty and climate change."" He says:""A Robin Hood tax, set at an average rate of 0.05 per cent. would raise up to $400 billion annually, resulting in tens of billions of pounds in revenue for the UK. In order to meet the scale of the financial challenges the UK and global economy faces, a financial transaction tax is by far the best option on the table."" I agree, and we should press very hard for that Robin Hood tax. I agree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) about eating severely into tax avoidance, which costs us dear. He gave some amazing figures, and in a recent TUC report, tax consultant Richard Murphy looked at the amount that is lost to the UK taxpayer by the use of tax havens in Jersey, Switzerland, Isle of Man and Guernsey. The report stated that""the TUC estimates that the total tax loss last year from UK residents (without non-domicile status) holding assets to avoid and evade tax is at least £4 billion,"" and that money should clearly be returned to this country. We must then deal with our skewed subsidies. I shall cite the TUC again, because it has provided some terrific information that the House should take into account. It points out:""Taxpayers are paying £2.50 for subsidising the pensions of the richest 1 per cent. of the population for every pound spent on paying pensions to retired public servants such as nurses, teachers and civil servants"."
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c445
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Cost effectiveness Debts Banks Credit Budgets Finance Higher education Economic situation Economic growth National income Public expenditure Loans Young people Small businesses Tax allowances Taxation Stamp duties Unemployment Economic recession World economy Budget March 2010
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:42:49 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634211
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634211
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_634211