The EU first proposed a Financial Transactions Tax in 2011. The idea was to make the “financial sector pays its fair share” for the 2008 financial crisis (and to discourage excessive speculation) by levying a small charge on certain financial sector activities. However, the proposal seemingly fizzled out (and Brexit has complicated negotiations further, given that the large UK financial sector is now outside the Single Market). Nevertheless, discussions are ongoing, albeit only among a smaller group of ten EU Member States under “Enhanced Cooperation” rules, and the Commission has said it still intends to introduce an FTT by 2026.
What do our readers think? We had comments on this topic from Tim, Jeremy and John.
To get a reaction to their comments, we put them to Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, a Danish MEP who sits with the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament and is Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Tax Matters. You can see her responses in the video above.
Would a Financial Transactions Tax hurt Europe’s economy? Would an FTT encourage investors to abandon Europe and take their business to other markets? And should the money raised by such a tax go to the EU or should it rather go to help tackle global poverty? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
Having regard to the heated 2011 DE debate over an FTT (that would levy a 0.1% tax on the transfer of shares and bonds and a 0.01% tax on derivative contracts) in the pro-EU heavyweight division- one prime aspect should not be ignored- the basic competency rests with the EU Members- Finance Ministers/treasuries.
Please don’t put the EU cart before the 27 national horses!
The 2008 financial crisis has passed, the national debt burden increased,
new & different ones have overtaken old & forgotten ones.
“The EU’s strategy on tax policy is explained in the Commission communication ‘Tax policy in the European Union — Priorities for the years ahead. The power to introduce, remove or adjust taxes remains in the hands of the Member States. Provided it complies with EU rules, each Member State is free to choose the tax system it deems most appropriate. Within this framework, the main priorities for EU tax policy are the elimination of tax obstacles to cross-border economic activity, the fight against harmful tax competition and tax evasion, and the promotion of greater cooperation between tax administrations in ensuring control and combating fraud. Increased tax policy coordination would ensure that the Member States’ tax policies support wider EU policy objectives, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and in the Single Market”
Why does the EU want/need to raise an FTT tax for ITSELF- or- worse- to become a disguised global charity org? Are its kitty and its financial advisors bankrupt?
Why isn’t the EU approaching the national leaders & Parliaments to consider replacing the EU proposed general FTT with a limited but specific “speculation, windfall, or institutionalised (gambling) tax- nationally? To assist to lower their debt level? Maybe call it speculation or ‘wishful thinking tax’?
Ok, (I assume) the EC office summons (invites) our national Ministers to Brussel’s to present its wishes to us- voters. Actually not, it’s only our Ministers!
• Whoever can afford the higher risk/reward can also afford any additional FTT or whatever future national tax.
• Any such tax raised belongs to the 27 national treasuries- not to the EU or the global poor! These poor countries all have governments and have to demonstrate first to govern honestly and care for their own poor. Please don’t assume they don’t know how! They know!
• Why an EU tax rule? The EU likes to make and later breaks/changes the rules.
The four major types of risky derivative contracts are options, forwards, futures and swaps. Too high risks for commoners!
In UK, financial services pay about 1/4 of total UK tax take…..seems fair to me !
10 Jahre warten sind genug. EU-Austritt jetzt 🥰🥰🥰
Of course, just to make sure the cost would not be passed onto users.
Those forced manichean points of view are strange.
The problem with tax ( or at least one of them) in my opinion, is that the money goes to a common reservoir of money, and therefore used for purposes not necessarily beneficial for creating more wealth. A financial tax should be earmarked to create more wealth through technological development. This could be achieved by deciding that these money cannot go into the political system, but only to research and development of technical solutions that are evaluated to create more wealth for the society in general. Exampels are fusion energy, alternative energy sources, pharmaceuticals/treatments with a substancial advantage compared to existing treatment, automatisation through artificial intelligence and robots, recycling systems for waste. In this way the tax will be returned as benefits for both investors and the general population. It might be a good idea to let a separate council of non-politicians decide to which projects the money should be applied.
Well, the big corporations should pay their “fair share” of course!
The respective tax must be applied for speculative Business.
Because, given speculative activities don’t create jobs.
In addition they tend to generate a destructive inflation.
taxing trans people?
seems legit, would make the fade ends pretty quickly xD
D’autant plus depuis que le Royaume Uni ne fait plus partie des Etats-Unis d’Europe, votre utilisation officielle, massive et délibérée de la langue anglo-étasunienne est inappropriée et abusive.
how about “would continuing with the even more expensive tyrannical communist european union” hurt the economy?
stop taxing and improve your management