Cutting through the twaddle: The Robin Hood Tax

Having been a professional economist for the last seven years of my career until I retired, I am continually frustrated by the disinformation and dissembling of politicians on matters of economic policy. It is also disturbing that the press coverage and analysis is so poor in the non-specialist press, especially the broadsheets, who should know better. In an attempt to counter this lack of proper information and analysis I am starting an occasional series on this blog to help readers who do not have any specialist knowledge in economics. I will try to keep these relatively short and simple and apologise if topics are not always covered in the depth they deserve.

Today, I want to look at the so-called Robin Hood Tax or Financial Transactions Tax (FTT). In economic circles, this is also known as the Tobin Tax, after the economist who first proposed it. Initially it was proposed as a transaction tax on foreign currency deals to dampen volatility and deter speculation. Later this idea was extended to other financial transactions.

The fact that it has been dubbed the Robin Hood Tax gives it a spurious legitimacy as it implies that it applies to the rich and benefits the poor. At best this is disingenuous and at worst deception. It is also worth bearing in mind the standard “economic” tests for a good tax. It must be fair, easy to collect, difficult to avoid or evade, transparent (i.e. obvious to the payer) and not produce perverse effects. The FTT fails in almost every respect.

  1. Easy to collect but easy to avoid. Adding a percentage to a financial transaction is not technically difficult but unless every tax jurisdiction in the world adopts a uniform FTT, transactions will migrate to lowest tax or tax free jurisdictions. This is because financial transaction are electronic and can be executed almost anywhere. It is extremely difficult to force transactions to be made in a location. In a sense this makes it difficult to collect as well. The only exception is property transactions, for obvious reasons, which is why property taxes tend to be high in most countries.
  2. Makes financial regulation more difficult and increases the risks in the financial system. If transactions are driven away from the “home” jurisdiction, then efficient regulation becomes much more difficult. One of the lessons of the financial crisis is that regulation was deficient and uncoordinated. A FTT would probably make it worse and risks would accumulate hidden away from regulators.
  3. The customer always pays. Proponents always seem to claim that somehow it is the banks that will pay. The sad reality is that it always the customer who pays. The banks will always pass on the costs either explicitly or implicitly. Almost always, this will be hidden from the customer who will be charged a gross price for a product without the underlying costs broken down.
  4. The goals of deterring speculation and raising revenue are irreconcilable. The more successful a tax is in deterring transactions, the lower the revenue generated.
  5. A FTT never raises anywhere near the revenues projected. Allied to the previous point, experience suggests that a FTT often raises a small fraction of the hypothetical revenue. The best example is Sweden in 1984, which imposed a FTT and saw bond market volumes decline by 85% within one week. The tax raised 3% of the projected revenues and eventually was abolished.
  6. Doesn’t deter speculation anyway. For example, stamp duty on property has never prevented property bubbles. There are much better ways of deterring speculation, for example through margin requirements.
  7. Raises transaction costs and reduces liquidity. A FTT is often pitched at a very small percentage of the face value of a transaction but this is deceptive. It widens the gap between buying and selling an instrument (technically the bid/offer spread). In many cases this spread is tiny so even a small percentage tax has a huge impact on trading costs and negatively impacts liquidity (because it is more expensive to trade). For example on a Eurodollar futures contract of $1m, a 0.02% FTT increases the cost of trading from $13 to over $400. This might not seem much, but it would dramatically decrease trading and liquidity. Before you say that this might be a “good” thing, futures were not a cause of the financial crisis and are a vital ingredient of the commercial world helping producers and manufacturers hedge all kinds of currency and commodity exposures.
  8. Reducing liquidity raises volatility. Anyone involved in markets knows this. A FTT, which is designed to dampen volatility, is likely to have the reverse effect by lowering liquidity.
  9. Reduce asset prices by raising the cost of capital. It has the same effect as raising interest rates. Asset prices fall. Who cares? It’s only the rich that suffer. Well, no, actually anyone who has any saving does. If you have a funded pension or a life policy or indeed any savings that are linked to asset prices you will be worse off. Unfortunately the real impact is usually worse on those with modest savings than those with large savings. The wealthy have a sizeable cushion of excess savings in contrast to poorer citizens to whom every penny is important. Raising the cost of capital also deters investment and growth in the economy.
  10. Reduces growth and raises unemployment. Allied to the above, slower growth usually raises unemployment. On figures produced by the European Commission, the proposed FTT would reduce long-term growth by 1.75% and increase unemployment by just under 500,000 in the EU.
  11. Favours public sector pensions over private sector pensions. Because private sector pensions are funded and dependent on asset values, any decline due to a FTT would have a detrimental impact on pension values. Public pensions generally are unfunded and so unaffected by asset values, hence public sector workers would be protected at the expense of private sector ones.

That’s quite a long list and I could include some more technical reasons, but you get the idea. It is not surprising that FTT taxes are rare and often repealed. They are ineffective and have perverse effects. It is a reflection of the economic illiteracy of Merkel, Sarkozy and Barroso that they have persisted with this idea long after countries like the US have rejected it. It certainly won’t work unless it is adopted globally and even then has significant drawbacks.

From a purely UK perspective, it is estimated that an EU FTT would raise approximately 80% of its revenues from London. It would wipe out the derivatives market in the UK and cost Ā£25.5bn. Ask yourself whether Merkel or Sarkozy would agree to an additional tax on Mercedes or Citroen cars. Further you might question Sarkozy’s motives when not long ago he was trying to woo HSBC to relocate its HQ to Paris with tax incentives.

Lastly, even interest groups as wide apart on the spectrum as the IMF and the Socialist Worker have admitted that a FTT is unworkable.

Hopefully, you can now exercise a bit of scepticism when you encounter some of the twaddle about a Robin Hood Tax.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Cutting through the twaddle: The Robin Hood Tax”

  1. Robin thank you for an interesting post. I would agree that the coverage from both the broad sheets and the BBC – Biased Broadcasting Company has done little to expose the real issues. My discussions on Friday amongst work centred around your last comments regarding the German car industry in particular and what the Germans would do to defend one of their key industries. Much is in the domestic politics of Sarkozy and to deflect blame to the old enemy – Britain. Perhaps he will not longer be able to do this once France loses its Triple A credit rating which I believe is quite likely.
    It maybe that Cameron is playing to the Eurosceptics, and this means that we may re-negotiate our relationship or exit from the EU – Good .The following comments maybe simplistic in its statement, but I am sick and tired of EU regulations and the impact that it has on my business. I seem to spend half my working day trying to sort out issues relating to issues brought in by the Commission.

    I am on several trade working groups and regulations affecting my industry seem pointless muddling and often you find that the UK had a better piece of regulation to start with. I also know that industries in many countries don’t seem to follow the regulations once they are enacted in their own parliments.

    My company exports to a number of EU countries and some outside of these territories. Our distributors there buy our products because they like them and importantly they are cheaper than what their domestic industries produce. I don’t see that us not being in the heart of Europe would make a difference to our business there. An emphasis on Asia and countries like Brasil maybe the order of the day and not the sclerotic future growth of Europe.

    I do conclude that the Eurozone cannot be allowed to fail but this is a different matter.

    Rant over – I going back to work now. Glad you allow me some some space to get it off my chest šŸ™‚

    1. I can’t believe how idiotic the euro elite is. They consistently show zero understanding of simple economics and then blame “speculators” when it goes wrong.

      1. Robin, the real issue for me is how/when are the leaders going to start to get serious about the euro. How are Italy/Spain/Greece etc going to refinance their huge debt ? Just as importantly are all the other 26 countries actually going to ratify this in their parliaments? – some will need a referendum to get it passed. Very interesting times !!

      2. Two things to look out for are when the Italians get fed up with their unelected government. Italy runs a primary budget surplus (i.e. before interest costs), therefore it (or more likely a new government) could leave the euro and could still pay the bills (defaulting on interest payments, although it could just print new lira). Greece can’t afford to exit as it has a primary deficit. The second is France. There are elections next year and the socialists are none too impressed with the new fiscal compact. Also Marine Le Pen is riding high, so Sarko may not make it to the last round. Villepin could also spike Sarko. France also lose its AAA rating soon. If French bond yields rise another 150bp, it’s game over.

  2. What they all say!
    A great post. I’m looking forward to this series. It’s all too easy to sit back and watch people on Facebook cut & paste newspaper articles from the Guardian & Independent that are economically illiterate. This only fuels the equally illiterate politicians as they then see the policy as a vote-winner.
    More needs to be written in a language that the general public can understand to get this message out there.
    The BBC seems to be run by Guardian readers. It’s important to get balance, so keep the articles coming!

  3. Keep up the good work Robin. I do enjoy reading your Economics articles though I do need to pluck up courage when I tackle your main economics blog!

  4. Cheers. My regular walking partner seems to have a sound grasp of economics and I usua;y have to nod as if understanding. Your article and future posts may help me form part of the one sided conversation. It is perhaps more important for us all to know more and show the political body that we cannot be led by the nose.

    Don’t forget to include walking blogs!!

      1. Excellent post, as ever, Robin.

        And there is a connection with walking in any case, especially with yours and Alan’s (and mine) pet hate: it’s those nice guys from Europe that gave us the wind farm madness after all. And the economic and engineering illiteracy of the wind farm supporters is of a piece with the sort of illiteracy you bring out so well in this post.

  5. This tax on the financial sector has the power to raise hundreds of billions every year globally. It could give a vital boost to the NHS, our schools, and the fight against child poverty in the UK ā€“ as well as tackling poverty and climate change around the world.

    1. It’s a fantasy to believe that hundreds of billions can be raised for the reasons I’ve outlined. The only way it would work is if ALL countries imposed a uniform tax. What are the chances of that? Zero, I would say. Even then who ends up paying the tax? The customers. Ultimately that’s just you and me. It just gets passed on in higher charges. I’m sorry to be blunt, but it just doesn’t fly on any level.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s