I was pleased to
see that First Minister Carwyn Jones has backed the idea of a tax on
financial transactions. The Tories, of
course, immediately responded by opposing it.
The cynic might suggest a relationship between that and their main
source of funding, but the arguments actually advanced are worth considering.
They are absolutely
right, of course, to suggest that a tax in only some of the world’s markets
would damage the industry in those markets, and probably drive some of the
business elsewhere. The question,
though, is whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. They assume that it’s bad – I’m far from
convinced. Anything which reduces the
volume of speculative trading and gambling seems to me to be a good thing
rather than a bad one. And sending the
worst offenders elsewhere to do their business doesn’t exactly worry me a great
deal either.
It’s also true that
a reduction in speculative activity in the City would hit tax revenues. The Tories refer to the large contribution
made by financial services to the Exchequer.
As ever, however, things aren’t quite as black and white as that. It has been claimed that financial services accounts for
around 8% of the UK economy, but contributes 25% of corporate taxation
to the Treasury. As far as it goes, that’s true. But because the
sector employs so few people relative to the turnovers involved, the
total taxation from the sector – adding together both company taxes and
personal taxes paid by employees – comes to more like 7% of the total,
marginally less than its ‘fair share’, purely on GDP comparisons, and
significantly less than one might expect looking at the overall
profitability of the sector.
So, in relation to the proportion of GDP which
financial services represent, they actually pay less tax in total
than other equivalent sectors; one of the reasons that they are good at making
profits for their owners is that they’re also good at minimising tax
payments.
And anyway, is the
fact that an activity which is inherently undesirable generates a lot of tax a
good reason for wanting the activity to continue? I’m not convinced. Over and above that, there’s the opportunity
cost. How much better off might we all
be if all those clever people devising ever more complicated ways of making
pennies at the margin in large enough volumes to be worthwhile applied their
skills to more socially beneficial activities?
As for the line
about not acting in Europe until the whole
world is ready to act – that’s a recipe for no-one doing anything ever. It’s not that dissimilar to the anti-wind
farm argument that the UK
can make no difference because we only produce 2% of the world’s emissions. The longest journey starts with the smallest
step; and if we believe that a financial transactions tax is the right thing to
do, it doesn’t become the wrong thing just because not everyone is yet
convinced.
No comments:
Post a Comment