罗宾汉税不一定劫富济贫
Last week a development charity press office sought my support for a “Robin Hood tax”. The idea of the tax – “turning a crisis for the banks into an opportunity for the world” – is that “a tiny tax on bankers has the power to rai hundreds of billions every year” to “tackle poverty and climate change”. Well, I am a big fan of Robin Hood, no great fan of bankers and would like to tackle poverty and climate change. But the idea leaves me cold.
姓名卡怎么做The tax is being backed by a large coalition of charities and fronted by Bill Nighy in a smooth marketing campaign. It's all in a good cau. But I have been appalled by the campaign's profound lack of curiosity as to whether this tax would be a good idea.
Start with the claim on the Robin Hood tax website that this is a “tiny tax on bankers … the people who caud this mess”. First, it's not a tax on bankers. It's a tax on financial transactions. And it's not necessarily tiny, becau some worthwhile financial transactions have a very large face value, and a much smaller true value. For instance, I might buy car insurance which could – if I knocked somebody down and permanently disabled them – trig
十大地板品牌
ger a payment of £1m. My insurance company might want to reinsure that million-pound risk, a perfectly nsible, socially uful and non-speculative transaction. But at a “tiny” tax rate of 0.05 per cent, that's a £500 tax on a face value of £1m. It's hard to imagine such a tax wouldn't somehow affect my premium.
The Robin Hood tax propos to rai veral hundred billion pounds, and it will ultimately be paid not by “bankers” but by all of us, with the burden shared unpredictably. Robin Hood himlf ems incurious where his arrows will strike, or at least unwilling to be specific.
The tax would certainly be attractive if, like a tax on carbon dioxide or congestion, it reduced destructive activities. But would it? James Tobin and John Maynard Keynes both propod taxes on financial transactions and each believed that the tax would reduce financial volatility. This is possible but far from obvious, when you reali that the tax might encourage bigger, more irregular financial transactions. An analogy: if I have to pay a charge whenever I u a cash machine, I make fewer, larger withdrawals and the amou
nt of money in my wallet fluctuates more widely. Bear in mind, too, that the most bubble-prone ast market is for housing, which is bought in very lumpy, long-term chunks.专家库
助眠音频There isn't much evidence as to whether transaction charges reduce volatility. What there is is mixed – but perhaps leaning against the Robin Hood tax. On the French stock market, coarr “tick sizes” rai spreads and act like a tax: they increa volatility. Transaction taxes on Swedish stocks in the 1980s reduced prices and turnover but left volatility unchanged.
Banks have let us down, but the answer is to reform the banks, not tax financial transactions. (Sometimes the local bus company lets me down; I have never regarded this as an argument for a bus tax.) I'd modestly suggest a combination of stricter capital requirements, clor supervision, better bankruptcy procedures for banks and charges for the taxpayer's underwriting of banks' balance sheets. A tax on financial transactions doesn't make my top 10 policy reforms. In fact, it doesn't figure on the list at all. It's a sideshow.
I haven't forgotten the ultimate aim of raising money for the very poor. It's a cau I continue to support politically and personally. But the Robin Hood campaigners have dented my confidence that they should be trusted with my cash. Money isn't enough: we must also care about what works. Do they?
驾驶
西红柿炒茄子Tim Harford's latest book is ‘Dear Undercover Economist' (Little, Brown).
双鱼座女明星
上周，一家发展慈善机构的新闻办公室找到我，希望我对“罗宾汉税”(Robin Hood tax)表示一下支持。该税的理念——“将银行的危机变成整个世界的机遇”——是“对银行家征收极少的税款，每年就能筹集到数千亿英镑”，用以“应对贫困和气候变化问题”。唔，我是罗宾汉的狂热粉丝，对银行家没什么好感，也愿意解决贫困和气候变化问题。但这个主意可打动不了我。
罗宾汉税得到了众多慈善机构的支持，英国演员比尔•奈伊(Bill Nighy)还在一场成功的宣传活动中担任主角。这都是好事。但让我相当错愕的是，至于这种税究竟是不是一个好主意，宣传活动则漠不关心。
让我们首先看一看罗宾汉税网站上的声明：“对造成了目前这种困境的……银行家征收极少的税额”。首先，该税征收的对象并非银行家，而是金融交易。此外，税额未必极少，因为一些有价值的金融交易账面价值相当高，而实际价值却小得多。例如，我去购买一份车险，如果我将别人撞成了永久性残废，就会引发100万英镑的赔付。我的保险公司会希望对这份价值百万英镑的风险进行再保险。这是绝对明智的，而且是对社会有益的非投机性交易。但根据0.05%的“极小”税率，100万英镑的账面价值就要交纳500英镑的税款。很难想象，这样一笔税款不会影响到我的保费。
罗宾汉税按计划能筹集数千亿英镑，而这笔钱最终不会由“银行家”来支付，而是以不可预料的方式分摊到我们每个人头上。罗宾汉本人似乎毫不关心自己的箭将射向何处，或者至少是不愿意给定目标。
如果这种税能减少破坏性活动，就像对二氧化碳排放或交通堵塞征税一样，那么它肯定有吸引力。但可能吗？詹姆斯•托宾(James Tobin)和约翰•梅纳德•凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)都曾建议对金融交易征税，也都相信能以此降低金融波动性。这种可能性是存在的，但效果根本谈不上显著——你会发现，这种税反而可能鼓励规模更大、更不合规范的
金融交易。打个比方：如果每次使用取款机都要缴纳一笔手续费，我会减少使用次数，每次提更多的钱，这样，我钱包里现金数额的波动会更大。要记住，最容易出现泡沫的资产市场是住宅市场，而购房交易额巨大，交易时间也相当长。
目前没有多少证据显示，对交易收费能减少波动性。现有的证据利弊参半——但多半不利于罗宾汉税。在法国股市，“最小价格变动量”越大，价差就越高，相当于征收了一笔税：而他们会使波动性有所增加。上世纪80年代瑞典对股票征收交易税，导致股价和成交量双双下降，但波动性毫无改观。
银行的确让我们失望，但解决办法是对银行进行改革，而不是对金融交易征税。（本地公共汽车公司有时也让我失望；但我从未把这当成征收公共汽车税的理由。）我谨建议将下面几项措施结合起来：提高资本充足率要求，加强监督，改进银行破产程序，并为纳税人对银行资产负债表的担保收费。在我的政策改革清单上，金融交易税进不了前十名。实际上，它压根儿就不在清单之上，只能算个助兴节目。
人才选拔我没有忘记罗宾汉税要为极贫困人口募资这一终极目标。无论从政治角度、还是从个人角度来看，我都会继续支持这项事业。但罗宾汉运动的发起人让我不太放心把自己的钱托付
给他们。光有钱还不够：我们还必须关心什么办法有效。他们关心吗？
