Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-201"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Question Time (Council)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001024.6.2-201"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-24-Speech-2-2022
lpv:speaker	lp:Alain Lipietz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; EMPL (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"I am not entirely convinced by all your answers. In the first place I take exception to the argument that any tax tends naturally to reduce the consumption of the factor on which it is levied. It is true for all taxes and today there is no tax where the taxable activity has completely ceased. People have not stopped working just because there is income tax. They have not stopped polluting just because there are taxes on pollution, and they are not about to stop transferring money from one country to another just because there is a Tobin tax. So, clearly, the revenue from this levy will not be zero. It will all depend on its level, but there are a number of possible strategies and I agree completely with you that the objective of funding is secondary to the objective of combating speculation. The thing that astounds me is your claim that a minor amount cannot have a deterrent effect on speculation. The minor amount you mention is precisely in the same order as the daily variations in the euro/dollar exchange rate, and this is something we are attempting to combat by other, infinitely more costly methods."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph