In France, when a problem arises, it generally creates a tax! More than 20 were thus created these past five years on the hundred of us housing which are the sources of the financial meltdown.
Taxing the banks cannot, by elsewhere, be that a, largely, although fragile patch to curb the excitement of a historical debt from a considerable excess of government spending. Only the reduction of the latter would have a real and sustainable impact. Tax benefit of the banks would only to remove a few drops of water in the ocean of public debt.
In addition, the French banks are already taxed very heavily. They perform a specific tax on wages has their own. They were also mistreated by the recent reform of the tax that will cost them not less than 100 million euros. It would be criminal to undermine them in international competition.
On the other hand, the history of the guarantee fund is not encouraging. Recall of the IOPCF, this European guarantee fund that is forcing oil tankers to make contributions to compensate victims of oil spill. After the "Erika", the latter received compensation to 15 of the damage. Even assuming that the established tax can really help banks avoid crises (which is not the case), it could be effective only if be applied, as now the British Association of banks, evenly around the world. But the Canada, the Australia, the Japan, the Switzerland and the Brazil have already shown their opposition in principle to any taxation of this type. The risk is great for British banks see their competitive advantage eroded by foreign banks. Does inflict the same punishment to French banks
Such a penalty would be even more misguided than in 2009, while the France was in recession with GDP to 2.2, the volume of loans to individuals and companies has increased by 2.7, an unparalleled rate of progression in Europe! It would therefore be paradoxical to punish them while they, finally, well behaved.
Two principles lighthouses of the economic analysis of taxation should, finally, not be overlooked. First of all, the tax legal base (for the moment unknown in the case of French banks) responds to the rate that is imposed. It is the effect of tax avoidance: impose an activity, it is making it more expensive. Individuals are therefore seeking to around it, which tends to reduce the base; This is the famous "too much tax kills tax". Thus, if the profits of the banks to be taxed more, they would be less encouraged to taxable profits, thus lending, because significantly on our economy. Banks would be for the same reason, an incentive to increase their current spending. Too much tax leads to, finally, too many unnecessary activities, at the expense of its useful and no one is to win.
On the other hand, a tax on an identified economic actor is without prejudice to that which will support really. No one can guarantee that a new tax that banks will not be in fine supported, at least in part, by the final customer (via an increase in bank charges for example).
This potential tax, it should be, more than ever, prefer the logic of responsibility encouraging the market players to adopt a calm and reasoned upcoming risk management and put an end to the logic of the "too big to fail" which implies a devastating moral hazard. In these times of more than fragile recovery, taxing more banks would therefore be not only an economic error, but also a danger for the French economy. Should the State of emergency to clean up in his accounts by reducing its expenditure while allowing the banks to do their work.