Plan B: Agree financial transaction tax

Dear Chancellor,

As you know, I supported your government's call for getting the deficit under control and I like it that this coalition government is taking a five-year perspective and laying out a medium-term expenditure framework.

It was and is important to get deficits under control. But in this deficit-cutting process, both the US and the UK need greater investment as well, notably in human capital, infrastructure and science and technology.

As these are key, I would urge budgetary adjustment that emphasises cuts in wasteful spending (for instance, I am urging the US to end its costly and ineffective military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) but raises spending meaningfully on investment in primary, secondary and higher education, skills development, modernised infrastructure, low-carbon energy systems and other high priorities, backed by higher tax revenues collected efficiently and equitably, especially from the top tier of income and wealth distribution.

This is especially urgent in the United States. The top 1 per cent of income earners in the US has enjoyed soaring real incomes even as the incomes of most Americans have languished. At the same time, the top 1 per cent has also benefited from fiscally unaffordable de facto cuts in federal tax rates.

For this reason, I am strongly supporting the call for a financial transaction tax, or FTT, which I believe would add efficiency to the global financial system by reducing destabilising speculation (as argued by James Tobin 40 years ago) and by raising revenues fairly from the undertaxed, high-income financial sector. As you know, we have a race to the bottom in the world tax system as the UK, US and others jostle to attract mobile capital. This race to the bottom in taxation and regulation was one reason that the financial system became dangerously deregulated in the lead-up to 2008. It is also why US corporate tax revenues as a share of GDP are plummeting. US multinational companies are increasingly hiding their profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.

All countries have a shared interest in ending these tax havens. The FTT will collect on some of this hidden income. We can and should go beyond the FTT by clamping down directly on tax havens through a globally co-ordinated effort, starting within the G20.

I understand that the UK position is that it will adopt the FTT if the US does so. The US urgently needs the revenues, the fairness and the efficiency of an FTT. May I kindly urge that you use your global influence within the G20 and bilaterally to ensure that the US signs up to the FTT, and so that the US, the UK, the EU as a whole and other regions avail themselves of this opportunity both to improve efficiency in the world financial markets and to raise revenues in an equitable manner.

Even if the US does not, I would hope that the UK and all other members of the EU would agree to such a tax. It would be in your shared interest and would set a powerful standard for other countries, including my own, to follow.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, a special adviser to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and a "personal adviser" to George Osborne on development

Previous: Cut VAT back to 17.5 per cent, says Christopher Pissarides

Next: Reduce NI contributions, says David Blanchflower

Back to list

8 comments

milesroces's picture

Taxes are taken from each individual who earns a living. For economic reasons taxes are valued greatly for the development of infrastructures for the creation of jobs and services among its citizens.


Chicago Accounting

SS's picture

This much refused tax is internationally, academically discredited. It would be an acknowledged toxic hit on pension funds, small investors and indeed entire economies. A dangerous proposition, rejected so many times that national leaders are now enduring the very mention of it.
European research shows it would actually be a negative impact on revenue.

Carol's picture

Kevin is concerned that someone might have more money than he does, so he promotes a tax that marginally harms a few wealthy at the dire expense of millions of average citizens.

I just read today that FTT will be the first tax that is actually designed to have a negative yield, although the author does not realize that all FTTs introduced have proven to be net negative.

The EU Commission admits to a 1.8 percent reduction in net tax revenues and a negative GDP of 0.5 percent. That is at the current proposed rate. The EU Tax Commissioner has already admitted the rate will increase once enacted. How many millions will lose their jobs? For every job lost in the financial sector, three more jobs are lost in other industries. Unbelievable. Heartless. Criminal. Those that promote FTT only do so for their own seemingly personal gain as any positive benefit to society of an FTT is nil.

The two vicious promoters of the tax abolished their FTT, Germany in 1991, France in 2008. It's a bad tax for them, yet perfect for the top financial center Great Britain and will suffer most of those job losses. Russia last week considered the FTT "absolutely illogical."

FTT is a cascading tax that increases many times during the investment process, right down to the individual via reduced yields and increased commissions. FTT does not just harm investors and destroy jobs. IMF states in the Final Report For The G-20, June 2010 about the financial transaction tax, "Its real burden may fall largely on final consumers rather than, as often seems to be supposed, earnings in the financial sector...A tax levied on transactions at one stage ‘cascades’ into prices at all further stages of production."

Lox's picture

Well said, Carol. But many proponents of FTT aren't interested in it's effectiveness: for them it's a weapon in a class war to damage the interests of people who they don't like.

Kevin's picture

Hi Carol,

FTT is the best idea on the table at the moment to (fairly, the proposed rate is very low) tax the elements of society who have the most money in order that the rest of society does not have to suffer - in the popular view - very unfairly.

If you think the present situation, in which a small minority controls nearly all of the nation's resources, ought to continue, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

Personally, I do not think it ought to continue, and FTT seems - to me - to be the best idea on the table at the moment (besides cutting the war effort and closing tax loopholes) as a means of redressing the balance.

Carol's picture

The antiquated FTT is driven by ideology not logic. The proponents are looking forward to its economic destructiveness with hundreds of thousands, maybe a few million losing their jobs. At least the unemployed are still allowed to vote. The majority of FTT is paid by hundreds of millions of individual investors that scrimp and save a pittance their whole lives only to have it stolen by thieves and thugs. At least investors are still allowed to vote.

Dana A.'s picture

Implementing the collection of FTT would seem, at first glance, to be a financial reporting and federal tax compliance enforcement nightmare.

Lox's picture

Kevin, it doesn't work. The Swedes and the Brazilians tried it, then watched their financial services industries wither as capital moved elsewhere before scrapping the FTT.

Latest tweets