This is the substance of the reply I’ve posted on Duncan Green’s blog, From Poverty to Power:
Let’s start with my original post. I didn’t actually say that an increase in taxes on wealth would be “more progressive and transparent” than an FTT. I said that it keyed more directly into a deeper logic. You can dismiss this as an “academic exercise” if you want to; I see the notion that there is a link between historical carbon emissions, the contemporary distribution of wealth and the need to finance adaptation in poor countries not as a “first best solution” to be pronounced in “lofty tones”, but rather as an important broad principle, from which could be developed some powerful political narratives. Historical responsibility is almost always framed in terms of nations, provoking a defensive response, and surely a new perspective that recognises and uses that fact that not everyone in the North has done equally well out of the history of energy intensive capitalist growth could be useful.
Paying for adaptation is going to be a long term issue, and having a campaign that (rightfully) grabs an opportunity (although more on that below) should not be a reason for banning an exploration of wider ideas. OK, so I used the Robin Hood Tax launch as a peg to hang my post on – but, hey, that’s blogging. If a campaign supported by everyone from Bill Nighy to Angela Merkel can be so threatened by some thinking around the issues from an ultimately sympathetic viewpoint, it’s not very robust is it?
Now let’s talk about the politics. You say you see a window for the FTT which isn’t there for a more direct tax on the wealthy. You could be right, but I think there are good counter-arguments. First, in the wake of the financial crisis, people hate bankers, not financial transactions. They want the bankers’ wealth taken away from them. They want financial markets regulated.
Second, and within that mood, increases in taxes on wealth are a real proposition. Despite his embattled political position, Obama is putting forward his proposal to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in his Budget.
On the other side of the equation, the incidence issue of a FTT is not just a nerdy debating point for pointy-fingered people, but a potential political weakness. Its opponents could try to make much of the likelihood that the tax will be passed through to ordinary people. Don’t forget that, in addition to the speculators and the banks, a huge range of major companies rely on futures and options to hedge currency risk in international business and trade transactions – the hedgies will pass the tax on to them, and they’ll pass it on to us. Think what the Daily Mail could do with that if it wanted to.
Lastly, however the money is raised, I also think you shouldn’t underestimate the importance of the politics of spending it – the last bone picked with Owen Barder in your post. Last September, we polled over 3,000 people in marginal constituencies to test views on various climate-related policies. Sadly, financial transfers to fund adaptation and mitigation in developing countries had little strong support, which also appeared vulnerable to arguments that corruption will prevent money from reaching the people it should. As you say, Oxfam and others continue to work on the “quality of aid” (as you put it), but I wouldn’t see that as something you should do separately from making the case for a FTT.
I’d like to think that being in favour of an FTT and wanting to develop a wider narrative and additional policy ideas weren’t mutually exclusive. For the record I am happy to get on board the FTT campaign bus. I just don’t want to leave my brain behind.
To avoid a brawl breaking out, we’re drawing a line under this issue now, and moving on to other themes.
andrewpendleton
chilesl
Matthew Lockwood