As Europe’s, and arguable the world’s,
leading centre for Financial Services, it is dismaying that at almost every
opportunity the UK’s Financial Services industry is targeted by those EU states
wishing to put a check on its influence. Many of these measures are ill-thought
through and are political decisions not financial ones, whether they be short
selling bans, bonus caps, and the huge amount of EU-sourced regulation which
stifles innovation and competitiveness as opposed to enhancing it. Another such
measure is the Financial Services Transaction Tax (FTT) whose implementation in
some form looks more and more certain.
This controversial measure proposes to
charge financial institutions 0.1% on trades of shares and bonds and 0.01%
across derivative contracts. The idea initially was to raise funds to insure
against any future bail outs whilst reducing the likelihood of future systemic
crises. But the FTT is the embodiment of everything the EU pretends to be
whilst actually achieving the opposite. Firstly, it makes EU Financial Services
less competitive in a global industry. Financial transactions take place all
across the world, and so the FTT is simply making the EU less attractive.
Secondly, instead of being a positive tax designed to protect the EU and create
a capital buffer, some forecasts (EU forecasts no less) show that the FTT would
actually see volumes reduce quite dramatically (up to 90% for derivative
transactions) and could even dent GDP growth. Unlike the Laffer Curve which
shows income tax as a positive tax up to a point then a negative, a FTT would
have very little upside and would be entirely a negative tax. When Sweden
introduced a tax similar to the FTT in the 1980s, it destroyed its options market since
most of the relevant business went to – guess where? – London. So the taxes were soon removed. The EU is
simply not learning the lessons of recent history – that FTT would drive
business offshore and to other continents. In any event in the UK we already
charge a Stamp Duty Reserve Tax on financial transactions covered by the FTT and so this is simply taking another slice from the pie
by the authorities.
The EU is supposedly designed for the
mutual benefit of every member state, however increasingly often the UK’s
financial services industry is being targeted whilst equally important national
industries are protected, in the way that the CAP safeguards French agriculture.
Yet the scope of the FTT is designed so that it would actually effect
non-signed up countries, such as the UK. It does not matter where a transaction
takes place in the world, simply whether one of the parties is resident in the
FTT-zone. Also any financial instrument issued in a FTT-zone country will be
taxed, wherever and by whomever they are traded. The idea of taxing transactions goes
against one of the foundations of the EU – the free movement of capital. It
really does seem like some EU industries are more equal than others.
It is yet
another example of an EU that is sceptical of Anglo-Saxon capitalism.
Who would really suffer from its
introduction? The answer, as so often in EU politics, is both counterintuitive
and perverse. It’s the EU’s whole financial services industry and ‘the people’
who they are trying to protect from future bail-outs. People’s pensions will become
more costly at a time that low interest rates are already hurting them. The
very idea that the FTT will help reduce the likelihood of another crisis is
laughable – the last crisis was triggered by a US housing market crash and
irresponsible lending by Banks.
And who will benefit? Well part of the
funds raised have been earmarked for things like climate aid, and so the tax
has already been exposed as less of a ‘banking buffer’ and simply another route
for the EU to raise funds for its own measures. More sinisterly this would be
the first EU-wide, harmonised tax measure and it’s clear that this is the
direction of travel - as it must be to
save the Eurozone – and the Eurocrats have already got their eyes on the UK’s
lower corporate and personal tax rates.
As things stand, the FTT has struggled to
get unanimous support amongst the 28 members of EU. The EU Commission initially
started thinking about in 2010 but struggled early on to gain support for it, so it turned to the
use of enhanced co-operation to implement the tax in the states which wished to
participate. As yet only 10 states actually have actually signed up for an
enhanced-cooperation FTT, but including France, Germany and Belgium. Eight
nations are opposed to it: Sweden, having learnt from their mistakes of the
past, being one and the UK another. Another 10 countries are on the fence,
although have expressed support if all 28 member states are forced to
participate.
It is thought that the tax will start to be collected in 2017. However, the UK would launch a legal challenge against a tax that affected its industry. The prospect does not look good, though, as an initial legal challenge was blocked in April 2014 by the ECJ.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.