David Prosser: Piling on the pain for the banking industry
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Outlook Another bad week for the world's banks, with the Goldman affair having further tarnished their already battered reputations, just got considerably worse. On any measure, the IMF's proposals for two new levies on the banks – made in response to a request from the G20 for a blueprint for new taxes – are considerably more draconian than even the City's pessimists feared. Look at the quantum for starters. The IMF's suggestion is for the levies to raise 2 to 4 per cent of gross domestic product over the long term: on last year's £1.4trillion for the UK, that means the banks handing over between £28bn and £56bn. We can argue about the definition of long-term, but even if the IMF were to give them 10 years to pay, you'd be looking at a bill of several billion pounds each year.
Then there's the structure of the levies. The banking industry had expected some sort of tax on its liabilities (not that this will stop it protesting) but an additional levy on pay and profits was a nasty shock. The UK's tax on bonuses, introduced for one year only in November's pre-Budget report, was intended to deter the banks from offering excessive rewards to staff – partly to appease public opinion, it must be said, but more importantly so as to leave them with greater funds to bolster capital. This new tax on pay and profits will, by definition, make it tougher to achieve that goal just as more stringent rules on capital and liquidity are likely to come into force courtesy of the review that is close to being concluded in Basel by the Bank for International Settlements.
The only silver lining for the banks is that others will share their pain. Having played no real part in the financial crisis, hedge funds and particularly insurers, both of which the IMF says should also have to pay these taxes, will feel sore about being asked to help the banks meet the bill. The IMF's only justification for this seems to be its concern that banks will otherwise restructure as hedge funds or insurance companies.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments