The Spectator isn’t in favour of many taxes, but we are calling for a mandatory insurance premium for banks. Depending on which version of the FT you picked up today, it seems the banks are agreeing to this too. But are they agreeing to a tax, or a fee? Even the FT isn’t sure – and has two different versions in two editions (pictured). “Some of the world’s most prominent bankers have come out in favour of a global tax on banks,” says the first edition with a report from Patrick Jenkins in Davos. But later editions changed this to “a global bank wind-down fund” (ie, voluntary) and in the headline “global tax” is replaced with “global fee”. So what’s up? It is not just a ruse to make sure they get the traffic from Drudge (which has the ‘tax’ line high up) but rather I suspect the banks realise they are in self-regulation territory – and their only hope of avoiding a tax, such as The Spectator is calling for, is to be seen to introduce this themselves as some kind of fund.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in