Tobin tax vs stamp duty: Both are worse, says BDO's Crean

The suggested Europe-wide stamp duty could suffer from many of the problems associated with the so-called Tobin tax, a specialist from BDO argues.

According to Bloomberg, German chancellor Angela Merkel is preparing plans for a stamp duty on shares, accompanied by rules that limit “abusive excesses” in automated trading, as an alternative to the financial transaction tax.

The move is seen as an attempt to win support from the UK, which has been opposed to the levying of a Europe-wide financial transaction tax after arguing that London would be hit disproportionately hard.

Paul Crean, tax director at BDO, says the stamp duty plan “might appear a step in the right direction” at first glance. However, he notes that no real detail has been offered on the proposal.

One area of concern is whether the tax will be able to meet its stated aim of creating an ongoing revenue stream. (article continues below)

“If the tax were now to be levied on the basis of the exchange where a security was traded, transactions could presumably be moved outside the EU,” Crean says. “As such, the EU is unlikely to achieve the revenue target it seeks.”

In addition, the commentator says implementing the tax will be complex while its administration cost could be high if has to be applied if just one party of a transaction is domiciled in the EU. This is another criticism of the financial transaction tax.

Crean also warns that, like the financial transaction tax, there is a risk the cost of the duty will be passed onto the consumer and create a disincentive for people attempting to save.

“In the end, in response to which tax is better, [prime minister David Cameron] may be wise to remember the gloomy Russian response: ’Both are worse’,” Crean concludes.

To receive more relevant articles like this one, why not sign up to our briefings and breaking alerts by clicking here and

Readers' comments (1)

  • Let's face it - ALL taxes are worse. Some people do move because of tax rates - but the vast majority do not, because the benefits, however defined, outweigh the costs. If the financial service provided by the UK are of the highest standard people will use them, despite a transaction cost, because the ancillary costs will be lower e.g. the administrative cost of chasing on mistakes is probably a lot higher than the tax cost.
    And forget fantasy land - the consumer always pays.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Advanced search

Poll

Have you looked at investment trusts more since RDR?