Talk:Robin Hood tax

Unintended Consequences and Arguments Against the Tax

Why are these two separate sections? Surely an argued unintended consequence (after all, the tax hasn't been implimented yet) and an argument against the tax is the same thing. Also, is it really neutral to include a counter-argument for every argument against the tax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myriamrobin (talk • contribs) 04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Myriamrobin (talk)

Interesting. I'm trying to add new content without destroying the work of others in the process. The arguments / counter arguments is boilerplate copied from the tax advocacy organisation, and is most likely OR. I'm trying to add respected scholarly articles regarding this tax - perhaps best done in a different section first and then merge, erasing duplicate material? What are your thoughts? Beganlocal (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Press coverage supporting this redirect

This redirect is supported by the following quote from the press, Toronto Star:

"Long resisted by Wall Street, the Tobin tax – or its new broader version, the financial transaction tax, sometimes called the Robin Hood tax – is now winning approval in the corridors of power."

Notice the grammar of the sentence: The two dashes frame this phrase:

"– or its new broader version, the financial transaction tax, sometimes called the Robin Hood tax –"

The phrase "Tobin tax" is left outside the dash frames. Therefore the redirect should go to "Financial transaction tax" instead of "Tobin tax."

Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Other press references supporting this redirect are these (See titles in references):

This is not a columnist. Instead, it is an article:

This is a columnist:

Boyd Reimer (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)