There is a particular tax way in that difference is also very obvious: most banking activity is not subject to VAT. The result is that banking is currently undertaxed, and the benefit largely goes to the wealthiest who make use of its services the most by value (inevitably).
And there is the now near universally acknowledged fact that banks outsource their risk to the world ta large, for which I think they underpay.
The result is a need for taxes on banks that reduce risk, are progressive and which compensate society for the costs banks can impose, of which 2008 was just an example.
It’s not left wing to demand a financial transaction tax in that case. It’s a key tax in rebalancing some of the presently seriously unbalanced elements in our economy as well as many of the economies in the EU and the world at large.
This is a move that has to be welcomed.
It may or may not be left wing to demand an FTT, it is most certainly stupid.
Because when economists measure the effect of an FTT they end up concluding that it brings in less revenue overall than not having an FTT. As even the EU itself pointed out. And as is the basis of my one and only peer reviewed paper in the literature, something which the new Professor will no doubt have extensively searched and cited, the literature that is, to reach his conclusion?
You know, this sort of talk about what economists measure and how? Referring to reality?
The second question of course is if the banking sector is undertaxed as a result of not being subject to VAT then why not adopt the solution from the Nobel Laureate who has actually studied this question? An FAT instead of an FTT?
Or is the new Professor simply ignorant of the difference, indeed of the proposal?