Bank Tax is Sensible Policy

In my thinking about regulatory policy, I have maintained that unless the purpose for regulation is consistent with the chosen instrument, then it may help not to regulate at all. With this fairly abstract factor in mind, I have wondered whether the recent intention to levy a special tax on the largest banking institutions in the US is sound policy or not. As is bound to happen increasingly, response to this initiative has been rather predictable. The bankers are arguing that imposition of a special tax would impair banking operations unnecessarily while a majority of the supporters of the special tax retort that the all-round economic pain should be shared with the banks since they have regained profitability. On the basis of what is argued in most opinion pieces, one cannot find insight except to see the ideological orientation and the prejudices rehashed.

While I avoid quoting blog pieces, I found Gregory Mankiw's explanation here for support of the piece as extremely well considered and justifiable. David Stockman, writing in the NYT also dissects the issue with a very clear idea of the dynamics of the credit markets and the failures in monetary policy that have not been fixed thus far. I am therefore persuaded by the concise arguments by both gentlemen.

Like Mankiw, I am uncomfortable with the populism that accompanies the arguments for this policy but it is clear that not all instances of financial creativity in Wall Street are useful for the economy. Instead, these are merely stunts that result in movement of money in circles but do not result in better allocation of capital. So prof. Mankiw argues correctly that it is a principle of economics that taxation of a good reduces the overall amount that is produced hence the levy will in probability cut off some of that activity. This tax also serves to restrain some banking activity that would cause further instability especially because the signalling has confirmed that very large banks will not be allowed to fail. And so having accepted the bail out, then bankers should take the full dose that goes with assurance of public support in the future. So the populist rhetoric aside and considering the subsidy that redistributed income from tax payers towards the industry, it is clear that this modest levy of 0.15% on the debts is modest even if it affects the more cautious firms that were not highly leveraged too.